IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Ex.FA.No. 10 of 2011() ---------------------- ORDER IN E.A.94/2010 IN E.P.13/07 IN OS.72/1998 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER (S) : ---------------------------------------- SUKUMARY, D/O.DEVAKI, KIZHAKKUMKARA, KULATHOOR, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/ COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, KOTTARATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, KOTTARAKKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 541. 2. RAGHUNATHAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, ISRO JUNCTION, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, KOTTARAKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 541. THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkj THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- Ex.F.A.No.10 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. This appeal is by a claim petitioner. The court below held that whatever be the interest the claim petitioner projects, that arose only long after the attachment was effected on the property which was brought to sale. The claimant and the judgment debtor, a couple, divorced after the decree. On the basis of the materials on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to exclude the property claimed by her. She claimed only 2.81 cents with a building thereon. The court below was of the view that such property cannot be excluded from the proclamation at the first instance, as claimed by her. However, the court below stood directed that the decree holder shall seek sale of the decree scheduled property, ExFA.10/11 2 excluding the property claimed by the appellant at the first instance and only if it is found that the land offered for such sale is insufficient would the entire property be brought to sale. We do not think that such verdict of the court below is contrary to the materials on record, including the evidence. In the result, we dismiss the appeal confirming the impugned order. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.29/6.