IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 RFA.No. 865 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2010 IN IA 3040/2010 IN IA 8249/09 IN OS.852/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER/NON PARTY ------------------------------------------------ M.L.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.LATE LAKSHMINI AMMA, MELOTH HOUSE, 4/874, CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER,R1 & R2/PLAINTIFF, D1 & D2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.A.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PULICKAL HOUSE, PULICKAPARAMBU, CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682312. 2. M.V.VIBIN, S/O.M.L.VENUGOPALAN, MELOTH HOUSE, 4/874, CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682312. 3. BINDHU, W/O.M.V.VIBIN, MELOTH HOUSE, 4/874, CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682312. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- R.F.A.No. 865 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This is an appeal by a claim petitioner. 2. The first respondent sued respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of money. He bought an item of property belonging to the second respondent under attachment. Appellant is the father of the first defendant. He filed the claim petition contending that he had cancelled the gift deed made by him in favour of the first defendant. The court below held, on the basis of materials, that following the gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff, mutation was effected and the document recites possession. Admittedly, the gift deed was made by the claimant reserving to himself the life estate. We do not, therefore, find any illegality in the impugned decision, though the right that could be continued under attachment for the purpose of sale in execution of the decree would be the right of first RFA.865/10 - 2 - defendant subject to the life estate of the appellant. Subject to this clarification, this R.F.A is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vgs