IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1270 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.121/2004 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER:-COUNTER PETITIONER:-DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV, S/O.DAIVADANAM, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:-PLAINTIFF/AUCTION SALE PURCHASER ----------------------------------------------------------- G.LALITHA BAI, AGED 57, W/O.SIVARAJAN, RESIDING AT THANKARAJ BHAVAN, KUTTANINNATHIL, ARUMANNOOR DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK 695 121. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.1270 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.121 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Neyyattinkara. The suit was for realisation of money. In execution of the decree, an item of immovable property which belonged to the petitioner was sold in auction. The decree holder purchased the property in auction. Sale was confirmed. Sale certificate was issued. E.A.No.511 of 2010 was filed by the decree holder/auction purchaser for delivery of the property. At that juncture, the petitioner raised an objection that even before institution of the suit, the property was transferred by him to a trust of which he is the Chairman and at the time when the execution sale was conducted, the petitioner had no title to the property. The court below stated in the order that raising similar O.P.(C) No.1270/11 2 contentions the petitioner had filed E.A.No.50 of 2007 and E.A.No.383 of 2009, which were dismissed on 13.10.2008 and 8.4.2010 respectively. The court below held that the objection now raised is only to delay delivery. The objections were overruled by the court below. The order passed by the court below is right. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl