IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RFA.No. 711 of 2010() --------------------- OS.84/2003 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA ................. APPELLANT / PETITIONER : --------------------------------------- GEORGE K.J., KARALATHUKARA VEETTIL, ASAD ROAD, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.M.J.BENNY RESPONDENT(S) / COUNTER PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.R.T.LEASING COMPANY CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 121. 2. NARAYANAKUMAR, PUNNRUTTU VEETTIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 516. BY THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, ALONG WITH RFA NO. 712/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. Nos. 711 & 712 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, The appellant purchased an item of property in auction proceedings conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18.5.2007. That property was mortgaged by the second respondent with the State Bank of Travancore, which ultimately ended up in the sale of property by the DRT. In the meantime, the property was attached by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla in the suit filed by the first respondent. When the appellant came to know of such attachment, he filed applications to lift the attachment. The said applications were dismissed. The issue raised in these appeals stands directly covered in favour of the appellant by the decision reported in Francis v. Navodaya Kuries &Loans (P) Ltd. (2010 (3) K.L.T. 609). RFA.711 & 712/2010. 2 We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and allow I.A. 252 of 2010 in O.S. 83 of 2003 and I.A. 253 of 2010 in O.S. 84 of 2003 by lifting the attachment as sought for therein. This is, obviously, without prejudice to the right of the decree holders to take action against the judgment debtor or his assets in terms of the decree. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.