IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 FAO.No. 29 of 2011() -------------------- I.A.3425/10 IN OS.248/2010 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- ANIL MUHAMMED, S/O.M.P.M.ABDUNNI, AMMANATH HOUSE, MARANCHERY AMSOM, PARICHAKAM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------- SHAKIRA ABOOBACKER, W/O.ABOOBACKER, MALAYIL HOUSE, USHAS COLLEGE COMPOUND, VATTAMKULAM AMSOM AND DESOM, VATTAMKULAM P.O. 679578, PONNANI TALUK. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- F.A.O.No.29 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs.9,50,000/- is the appellant. He got an ad-interim order of attachment before judgment of 5 cents of property. On contest, the court below confined the order of attachment to be as regards items 1 to 4 after specifically holding that the fair value register would show that the fair value fixed by the Government for items 1 to 4 will come around Rs.35 lakhs which, obviously, is nearly 4 times the plaint claim. Item No.5 was released from the ad-interim order of attachment. Noticing that it houses a CBSE school and the defendant has only lease hold right over that property with no materials on record in any manner challenging the credibility of the fair value as fixed by the Government and noted by the court below, we do not find any jurisdictional error or legal FAO.29/11 2 infirmity with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently argued that even going by the counter affidavit of the defendant, item Nos.1 to 4 are at the threshold of being either sold off or subjected to procedures on the basis of agreement for sale. He also points out that the defendant has liabilities under the EPF & MP Act, 1952, which may visit item Nos.1 to 4 with distress action, with first charge, in terms of the principles of that Act. If there is change of events, it will be open to the plaintiffs to bring it to the notice of the courts for modulated and modified reliefs as may be required. At the present situation, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to what is stated above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.11/2.