IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1303 of 2008(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BRAHMANANDAN ,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAKKATTUKIZHAKKA- THIL,PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUNADU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. MR.SURESH CHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN VAIDHYAN, RESIDING AT ARUN SADANAM, RANNI, PERUNADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1303 OF 2008 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P1 is an agreement for sale entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The agreement is for sale of a plot of immovable property. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and the property has been attached. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext. P3. The contention that is raised in Ext. P3 is that in view of Ext. P1 agreement for sale the 3rd respondent seized to have any proprietary right in the property attached and therefore the attachment effected is illegal. I am not in a position to accept this contention. The immovable property can be sold only in the manner known to law and the agreement for sale cannot by itself create a right in favour of the transferor as contended by the petitioner, nor can a vendor cease to have title in respect of the land. If that be so, the contention raised by the petitioner is WPC No. 1303 of 2008 -2- unsustainable. I am not persuaded to issue a direction as sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-