IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Ex.FA.No. 57 of 2004() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2004 IN EP.43/00,EA.281/02 IN OS.255/1995 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER -------------------------- MATHEW SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, (WAS WORKING AS DTP OPERATOR, RASHTRA DEEPIKA, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR), CHEMBANKANDATHIL HOUSE, MINIMOOLI P.O., NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, CHEMBANKANDATHIL(H),MINIMOOLI,NILAMBOOR,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. KULAVELI KUNNUMBRATH ABOOBACKER, S/O.KAREEM BAVA, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SAHANA, KANNUR-1, ANAYIDUKU DESOM, KANNUR-12. 2. RAVEENDRA MESTHIRI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PADMINI NIVAS, PALLIKUNNU DESOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 SRI.M.K.SUMOD FOR R1 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ex.F.A.No.57 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Service is completed and I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.C.Haridas, counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.M.K.Sumod, counsel for the respondent. It was submitted by Sri.Sumod who appears for the decree holder-first respondent that a consensus has been arrived at between the appellant and the first respondent who are the contesting parties. The consensus is to the effect that the sum of Rs. 31,130/- which was deposited by the appellant before the execution court pursuant to this court's interim order dated 03/12/2004 can be allowed to be withdrawn by the first respondent and that thereupon the order of attachment can be lifted. 2. Sri.P.C.Haridas submitted that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant is not a bonafide purchaser for value is wrong. He submitted that the inability to produce the original of the title document on the basis of which the appellant claimed title was that the purchase itself was with financial assistance rendered by a Ex.F.A.No.57/04 2 bank and the document had been deposited with that bank itself in connection with an equitable mortgage. Before this court certified copy of the sale document has been produced. The certified copy will reveal that much prior to the date of attachment the property in question had been purchased by the appellant. It is clear that the property has been purchased by the appellant with financial assistance from a bank. Naturally, the financing bank had become convinced regarding the clarity and marketability of the title when the bank advanced loan to the appellant for purchasing the property. I am not prepared to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge's observation that the appellant is not a bonafide purchaser for value. I hold that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser for value. 3. Recording the compromise and in view of my finding as above, I set aside the impugned judgment and allow the claim petition E.A.No.281/02 in E.P.No.43/2000 subject to the following conditions; The entire sum of Rs. 31,130/- deposited by the appellant before the execution court pursuant to this court's interim order dated 3/12/2004 will be allowed by the court below to be withdrawn by the Ex.F.A.No.57/04 3 first respondent- the petitioner in the E.P.. Once the amounts are withdrawn, this judgment allowing E.A. will become operative and the order of attachment will stand lifted. Since it is found that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser for value, it is made clear that the appellant will have every right to proceed against the second respondent for recovery of the amount which he became obliged to deposit pursuant to the order of this court. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. Ex.F.A.No.57/04 4