SUMA Vs. SINIMOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of Ext. P6 proclamation of sale made by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in E.P. No. 11/2013 in O.P. No. 673/2005.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the sister of the second respondent. The first respondent is the wife of the second respondent. She had filed O.P. No. 673/2005 against the second respondent for granting a decree for return of money and gold ornaments. She obtained a decree against the second respondent in that case for realization of an amount of X 3,50,250 with interest @ 18% per annum from 10-6-2005 till the date of realization. She filed E.P. No. 11/2013 for execution of the aforesaid decree. During the execution proceedings, the property which originally belonged to the father of the second respondent was attached. Then the petitioner herein filed an application as E.A. No. 12/2014 claiming half right over the aforesaid property. As per the order dated 25-9-2015, the execution court found that the entire property is not liable to be sold in the execution proceedings and that the decree-holder is entitled to realize the decree debt by selling only one-half right of the second respondent in that property. The execution court found that the petitioner herein is one of the co-owners of the aforesaid property. The first respondent proceeded with the execution proceedings for sale of the aforesaid property. Exhibit P-6 proclamation of sale was made by the execution court in respect of the property.

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioner that her right in the property is also proposed to be sold in execution of the decree including the area in which she has constructed a house and therefore, the proclamation of sale made by the execution court is not proper and valid.