IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Ex.FA.No. 45 of 2008(B) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/02/2008 IN EA.120/2004,EP.124/2003 IN AP.109/1999 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT (S):/CLAIM PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- THALAVALAPPIL VENUGOPAL, S/O.KUNHAKKAMMA AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KUTTOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/D.H. & RESPONDENTS/J.D. ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. I.C.D.S. LTD., MANIPAL, THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, LAL'S APARTMENTS, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR DIST. 2. K.V.HAMZA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.S.V.MOHAMMED, K.V.HOUSE, P.O.KUTTOOR, M.BAZAR, KUTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM. 3. P.P.SHAJI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KORAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL, P.O.KUTTOOR, DO. DO. 4. K.P.USMAN, S/O.ABBAS, AGED 42, K.P.HOUSE, KUTTOOR, AMSOM AND DESOM, DO. ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R1 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Ex.F.A. NO. 45 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order in E.A.120/04 in E.P.124/03 in A.P.109/99. It is a claim application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant contending that he had purchased the property from the 2nd respondent in the E.A. on 15.1.02 by virtue of an assignment deed 62/02 of S.R.O. Mathamangalam. The executing court after considering the matter had dismissed the execution application and it is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the claimant as well as the counsel for the first respondent. The claimant is a purchaser of a property of the year 2002 and the property purchased had been the subject matter of attachment in another suit pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. When a property is purchased and on which an attachment subsists S.64 of the Code of Civil Procedure will directly come Ex.F.A. NO. 45 OF 2008 -:2:- into play and the same will be void. The only exception is to the Court sale and not to a private sale. So it will not confer any right on the appellant in view of S.64 Code of Civil Procedure. It is also to be stated that this appellant had transferred a portion of the property before the filing of the execution application and the entire extent subsequently after the filing of the execution application. A reading of the order would reveal that the claimant has no much idea about the property even. So the question of any bonafide purchase also does not loom large for consideration. Therefore the discussion and decision arrived at by the Court below also cannot be found fault with. The appeal lacks merit and therefore the it is dismissed but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-