IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 1918 of 2007(C) 1. MUHAMMED @ ASSAN MUHAMMED, ... Petitioner Vs 1. NARAYANAN, S/O. KODANGATTU THACHU KURUP ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :29/06/2007 O R D E R M.N.KRISHNAN, J =========== W.P.C.NO. 1918 OF 2007 ================ Dated this the 29th Day of June, 2007. ========================= J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order of the
learned Munsiff, Pattambi, in E.P.No.75/2005. The Execution
Petition is one for realisation of the amount by detaining the
judgment debtor in civil prison for the reason that though he is
having sufficient means to pay, he has refused to pay the amount
and so he be arrested and detained in civil prison. The judgment
debtor entered appearance and contended that he has no means
to pay and that he is not neglecting or refusing to pay the
amount. So arrest need not be ordered. But at the enquiry
state, the matter proceeded in another angle, for the reason, that
the property which the judgment debtor has, was transferred in
favour of his wife in the year 2005. The court entered into an
enquiry regarding the genuineness of the transaction. I feel, in
an Execution Petition where it is specifically averred that the
question to be considered is that of means and neglect to pay.
The enquiry has to be made only within that four corners and not
W.P.C.NO. 1918 OF 2007 2
extraneous to that. It is true that, when a judgment debtor
transfers his property with an intend to delay of defeat the
creditors, the decree holder has a remedy, and it is the provision
under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, which entitles
the decree holder to challenge that document in appropriate
proceedings even in execution applications. Now a perusal of the
documents produced would show that there was a previous
agreement and only on the basis of that and on account of the
non-payment of the amount stipulated in the agreement, the
document was executed. I am afraid that the court below has
entered into a scope of enquiry which was not contemplated in a
petition filed under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Therefore I set aside that order. But at the same
time the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder
submits that sufficient opportunity be given to her client in order
to adduce further evidence to prove the means of the judgment
debtor and his intentional and deliberate act of non-payment. An
opportunity therefore is given and therefore the order under
challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
executing court for consideration of the factum of means and also
W.P.C.NO. 1918 OF 2007 3
the neglect on the part of the judgment debtor to pay the
amount. But I make it clear, if circumstance exist, and the
decree holder wants to invoke the benefit under Section 53 of the
Transfer of Property Act, he may do it in appropriate proceedings
or by amending the execution application as permissible under
law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN
JUDGE
bkn