IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 FAO.No. 78 of 2011() ------------------------------ I.A.3204/2010 IN OS.634/2010 of II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KADER HAJI, KAMMALAM KUNNATH HOUSE, RAROTH AMSOM, KEDAVOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH MATHAYI, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 61 YEARS, ALLAGUZHA HOUSE, KUDATHAYI AMSOM, PALONA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, 673 001. 2. THANGAMMA, W/O. MATHAI, AGED 53 YEARS, ALLAGUZHA HOUSE, KUDATHAYI AMSOM, PALONA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, 673 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs FAO.No. 78 of 2011 ORDER ON I.A. NO.867/2011 IN F.A.O. NO.78/2011 DISMISSED 31/03/2011. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.78 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of amount allegedly due as un-returned advance under a contract for sale of immovable property is the appellant. He obtained an ad interim order of attachment before judgment, of two items of properties. A schedule holds 6 acres and B schedule holds 1 acre. Ultimately, the court below vacated the attachment regarding the A schedule and confined the attachment to B schedule by taking the view that in terms of the agreement, the consideration fixed is Rs.13,900/- per cent and 1 acre would be more than sufficient to satisfy such amount. The argument of the plaintiff-appellant is that B schedule property will not fetch such value unless it is sold along with A schedule and the agreed price was on the basis of the understanding that both the items would be sold. We are of the view that all that is necessary is for the defendants to produce FAO78/11 -: 2 :- before the court below a valuation certificate to the satisfaction of the court below to ascertain the value of B schedule or A schedule and confine the attachment over such property, as may be required to secure the decree debt that may be found in the event of the plaintiff's success. To ensure that process, we modify the impugned order and pass an order of attachment before judgment of item 1 (6 acres) also and direct the court below to consider modification of such attachment, if it is satisfied on the basis of valuation certificate as may be produced by the defendants. We also make it clear that it would be open to the defendants to furnish bank guarantee or such sufficient security as may be justified on the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court below in lieu of attachment. Appeal ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/0504