IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 227 of 2003()
1. K.E.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VELIKOVIL VALSAN, S/O. LAKSHMI,
... Respondent
2. K.HARIKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
For Respondent :SRI.E.V.NAYANAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :02/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O. No. 227 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Bhavadasan, J,
Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2002 in E.A.
601 of 2001 in E.P. 264 of 1999 in O.S. 204 of 1997, the first
respondent before the court below comes up in appeal. The
parties are herein referred to as they were arrayed before the
court below.
2. Petitioner had filed E.A. 601 of 2001 under
Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside
the sale. Petitioner was a stranger to the proceedings. In the
petition, it was pointed out that the property which was
allegedly belonged to the judgment debtor in the case and
which was sold on 4.10.2001 in satisfaction of the decree had
earlier been sold in execution of decree in O.S. 211 of 1997
on 23.11.2000 and property had already been delivered also.
FAO. 227/2003. 2
In the light of the said facts, it is pointed out that the sale in
E.P.264 of 1999 in O.S. 204 of 1997 could not survive.
2. The appellant resisted the claim. It was pointed out
by him that attachment of the property in execution of the decree in
O.S. 204 of 1997 was earlier to the attachment in O.S. 211 of
1997. The appellant therefore sought to sustain the same in E.P.
264 of 1999.
3. The court below rightly held that in the light of the
fact that the sale in O.S. 211 of 1999 was prior to the sale in O.S.
204 of 1997, the sale in E.P.264 of 1999 had to be set aside.
4. Even assuming that the judgment in O.S. 204 of
1997 was earlier in point of time, that does not preclude the court
from proceeding against the property and bringing into sale in
another suit. There is no dispute in this case that the property
involved in this proceeding was sold in satisfaction of the decree in
O.S. 211 of 1997 on 23.11.2000 . The sale in O.S. 204 of 1999
had taken place on 4.10.2001. It is therefore very evident that the
FAO. 227/2003. 3
judgment debtor did not have any salable interest as on the date of
sale in execution of the decree in O.S. 204 of 1997.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned
order. The appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.