IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2007 / 24TH ASWINA 1929 CRP.No. 1146 of 2003() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2003 IN EA.2020/2001 IN EP.571/01IN OS.769/88 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER:/2ND RESPONDENT IN EA 2020/01 IN EP 571/01 IN OS 769/88: ---------------------------------------------------------- JOY JOSEPH, S/O. KIDANGATH CHACKALACKAL JOSEPH, TC-32/633, KARIMPATTA THOPE, CHIYARAM DESOM & VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TC0/621/62, PUTHOOR ROAD, NADATHARA VILLAGE, ANCHERI DESOM, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN 1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN EA 2020/01 IN EP 571/01 IN OS 769/88: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMUGHA KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, KURUPPAM ROAD, TRICHUR. 2ND RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN EA 2020/01 IN EP 571/01 IN OS 769/88 2. RAJU JOHN, S/O. JOHN, MANJALI HOUSE, KURIACHIRA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2007, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1147 OF 2003 ,ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.Krishnan, J. ======================== CRP Nos.1146,1147,1148 & 1151/2003 ========================= Dated this the 16th day of October, 2007. ORDER I.A.Nos.1641, 1642, 1646 and 1647 of 2007 are filed with a prayer that since the decree amount has been satisfied and as the E.P. stands closed, the Civil Revision Petitions may be closed. It is opposed by the judgment debtor in all these petitions. The decree holder in the suit challenged the transfer effected by the judgment debtor in favour of the present petitioner on the ground that it is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act as it was done with an intention to defeat or delay the creditors. The court held that as far as the decree holder is concerned, it is a fraudulent transfer. 2. Subsequently, the matter has come up before this Court in revisions and during the pendency of these revisions, the person who had purchased the property had filed an application to the effect that since the decree amount has already been paid and the decree is satisfied and the Execution Petition is closed, CRP 1146/03, etc. -: 2 :- further proceeding in the Civil Revision Petitions is not necessary. It is stoutly opposed by the judgment debtor in these cases. The decree holder has no objection because his part of the decree has been satisfied. 3. Now, the point which the judgment debtor wants to raise against the purchaser is that those transfers are not fully supported by consideration and it is fraudulent, etc. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly states that every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed. So in order to attract Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act there must be a challenge made by the creditor against the transfer made by the judgment debtor in order to defeat the creditor. But as far as the present contention is concerned, it is the transferor, namely, the judgment debtor, who wants to assail it under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot be done in view of the clear provisions mentioned therein and therefore, an adjudication under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be done in these revision petitions between the judgment debtor and his CRP 1146/03, etc. -: 3 :- transferee. Therefore, since the decree holder has admitted that the entire decree amount is paid and full satisfaction is recorded it goes without saying that no further actions are contemplated in the Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Therefore, I grant permission to close these Civil Revision Petitions and the revision petitions are closed accordingly. But I make it clear that if the judgment debtor has got any other legal remedy which he can pursue, he is at liberty to do so. M.N.Krishnan, Judge. ess 17/10