IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 37 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2009 IN IA 1400/2009 IN OS.158/2009 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------- RUGMINI AMMA.D/O.YESODA AMMA, MULAMANNIL KARUMATHIL MELEL,"KRISHNA NIVAS", MALAPPURAM AMSOM, KIZHMURI DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMEDAJI, THUMBATH IDAPPANATTU, PARAPPUR AMSOM,DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ F.A.O.No. 37 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal is an order of attachment passed by the Sub Judge, Manjeri in a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant. The suit is filed for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property with alternative prayer that a sum of Rupees Twenty Five Laks allegedly paid to the appellant be returned with interest. The respondent/plaintiff relied on Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 3- 4-2009. Ext.A1 prima facie shows that there was an agreement for sale between the parties and that at the time of Ext.A1 a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- Lakhs was paid. The correctness of the recitals in Ext.A1 are very seriously disputed by the appellant. In fact the very genuineness of Ext.A1 is in dispute. 2. Sri.M.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that when genuineness of Ext.A1 is in dispute, the court below should have insisted on other items of evidence for finding a prima facie case. We do not agree. What is required is FAO.No. 37/2010 2 only existence of a prima facie case in support of the allegation in the plaint. According to us, Ext.A1 makes out a prima facie case and, therefore, the court below was justified in passing the order of attachment. We are not inclined to interfere. We, however, will clarify that the order of attachment will be confined to the appellant's right in the property in question. According to the appellant, he does not have one third right over the property. He is having only a lesser share in the property. Whatever that be, it is needless to clarify that the attachment can relate only to the legal right which the appellant is having in respect of the property under attachment. The appeal is dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk