LEENA GOVINDAN Vs. GOVINDA NAIK A DLABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the petitioners in OP No.1415/2004 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The OP was filed seeking for a declaration that the alienation of property by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent and thereafter by the 2nd respondent to respondents 3 and 4 are void and unenforceable. The Family Court after considering the evidence declined the declaration as sought for. Other claim for past maintenance has been allowed by the Family Court.

(2.) The short facts of the case that have arisen in the case are as under:-

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter statement inter alia contending that she purchased the property in the year 1999 as per document No.6070/99. Thereafter, she remained in exclusive possession of the property. Mutation was effected in the revenue records and she is remitting basic tax in relation to the property. It was therefore contended that the petitioners are strangers and they have no right over the property. It is further contended that the 3 rd respondent was unaware of the agreement for payment of money or the decree. She also denied that an order of attachment was passed in the case in OP No.628/1998. It is contended that the decree in OP No.628/98 will not affect the right of the 3rd respondent over the property. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Before purchasing the property, she had made all enquiries and she was convinced that there was no charge or liability over the property. She denied that there was any collusion with any of the respondents.