Ashraf vs Abdul Rasheed

Sathish Ninan, J.

The dismissal of an application for attachment before judgment is under challenge by the plaintiff.

The suit is one for recovery of money, claimed to be the balance sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, an extent of 2 Ares and 2 Square meters with a building thereon belonging to him was conveyed to the 1st defendant  as  per  Sale  Deed  No.1426/18,  for  a  sale consideration of ₹2,01,50,000/-. Out of the sale consideration, only an amount of ₹57,50,000/- was paid at the time of registration of the Sale Deed. After the registration of the Sale Deed, a further amount of ₹25 Lakhs was paid through one Rahim, who manages the properties of the plaintiff since he is abroad. Thus, out of the total sale consideration, an amount of ₹82,50,000/- was paid. The suit is for realisation of the balance.

Along with the suit, the plaintiff moved I.A No.1 of 2022 seeking attachment before judgment, of the immovable property of the 1st defendant.

The 1st defendant contended that, the consideration for the sale was D46 Lakhs and the entire consideration was paid to the plaintiff through bank account.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

Ext A1 is the Sale Deed No.1426/18. Ext A1 recites the sale consideration as ₹46 Lakhs and satisfaction of the same through Bank.

Ext A1 was executed on 23.07.2018. The present suit is filed only on 24.11.2022.

To probabilise the case that further amounts are payable, the plaintiff contended that, subsequent to Ext A1 Sale Deed the 1st defendant had paid an amount of ₹25 Lakhs through one Rahim, who manages his properties since he is abroad. Such payment is not admitted by the 1st defendant. There is no material evidencing such payment.

The plaintiff relies on Exts A2 and A3, two sale agreements dated 22.07.2018, purportedly executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the aforementioned Rahim. It is the plaintiff's case that the said agreements were executed as security for the balance sale consideration. The 2nd defendant is a witness to Exts A2 and A3. The 1st defendant has denied Exts A2 and A3 agreements. According to him, the said Rahim is a money lender. The 1st defendant had obtained a loan of ₹7,50,000/- from Rahim. Towards security for the said transaction, certain blank signed stamp papers and blank signed papers along with Sale Deed No.163/84 belonging to him were handed over to Rahim. Though the 1st defendant sought for return of the same on repayment of the loan amount, it was not acceded to by Rahim and he demanded exorbitant amounts. Exts A2 and A3 has no connection with the sale deed executed by the plaintiff, it is contended.

There is no material on record to find that Exts A2 and A3 have any nexus to the transaction(sale) between the plaintiff and the defendant. The said documents are purportedly agreements for sale, between Rahim and the 1st defendant. The said agreements were executed on 22.07.2018 that is, prior to Ext A1 Sale Deed. It does not make any reference to the sale consideration or the sale. Therefore, as rightly held by the Court, Exts A2 and A3 cannot be linked with Ext A1 Sale Deed.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to make a contention that the actual sale consideration was much higher than that was mentioned in Ext A1 sale deed, is also a matter raised for consideration.

On the basis of the above it can only be concluded that the trial court was justified in rejecting the prayer for attachment before judgment.

The appeal fails and is dismissed. However, it is clarified that, the findings entered into are solely for the purpose of disposal of the Interlocutory Application and that the suit shall be tried and disposed of untrammeled by any of the findings above.