IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 FAO.No. 216 of 2011 ---------------------------- I.A. 2/2011 IN OS.3/2011 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT (S):PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, THANOLIL VEEDU, MELAMBARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 2. THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, THANOLIL VEEDU, MELAMBARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.M.KISHORKUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.V.GEORGE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, VAZHAMPLACKAL, NARIYANGANAM KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM-686 579. 2. JIMMY GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.V.V.GEORGE, VAZHAMPLACKAL, NARIYANGANAM KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM-686 579. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.216 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants challenge the order passed by the Sub Court, Pala lifting the conditional attachment and dismissing an application for interim attachment. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Briefly put, the case of the appellants is as follows: Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit for recovery of Rs.17 lakhs, which the learned counsel for the appellants submits, is subsequently limited to Rs.5 lakhs. According to the appellants, Rs.5 lakhs was given as security. This is disputed by the respondents. The court below found that, admittedly Rs.5 lakhs was given as security and the cause of action will arise in a suit only at the time of termination of tenancy and surrender of possession. It is stated that plaintiffs are not willing to surrender possession. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, on payment of Rs.5 lakhs the appellants are prepared to surrender FAO 216/2011 -2- possession. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the statement in the order that it is admitted that Rs.5 lakhs is given as security is not correct. Whatever that be, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, already undertaking has been given in the court below that the 2nd respondent to whom the Ist respondent has transferred the property will not alienate the property. Learned counsel for the respondents also reiterates that the 2nd respondent will not alienate the property. We record the said submission and dispose of the appeal. We further direct that the Sub Court, Pala will take up O.S.3/2011 and dispose of the same before the closure of the Courts for summer vacation-2012. Needless to say, the Sub Court will take a final decision in the matter untrammelled by anything contained in the impugned order. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (A. M. SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. MS