IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RFA.No. 242 of 2011 --------------------------- I.A.911/2010 IN OS.660/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT (S):PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SUDHA SURESH, W/O.SURESH, SWATHI, VIVEKANDANDA NAGAR, PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.KRISHNA DAS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, MANJU BHAVAN, KUMIZHIKKARA, KAZHAKKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.V.SURESH, S/O.SREENIVASAN ACHARI, T.C.41/2678, SRIVASANTH, SACHIVOTHAMA LANE, MANACAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN & ADV. SRI.N.KRISHNAPRASAD. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- R.F.A. No.242 of 2011-A ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the applicant in I.A.911/2010 in O.S.660/2009. I.A.911/2010 was filed by the appellant to lift the attachment of the property. The said application has been dismissed. Hence, the appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute that the appellant acquired the property as per settlement deed No.3096/2007. It was executed by the defendant. According to the appellant, she had effected mutation and was paying tax. The suit itself was filed as O.S.No.660 in the year 2009. The application was made under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure. There was an attachment before the judgment. The finding of the court below is that the settlement deed was a fraudulent one. Learned counsel for the appellant brings to our notice the decision of this Court reported in Rajan alias Rajan Gopinath v. Jayasree Nayar (2010 (1) KLT 142). Learned RFA 242/2011 -2- counsel for the respondent is not able to convince us that the said decision should not apply to the facts of this case. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the claim petition will stand allowed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (A. M. SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. MS