R.D.Rajan vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking that the entry of attachment on their property, as ordered in OP(HMA)No.347/2013 by the Family Court, Mavelikkara, be ordered to be deleted in view of the affirmative declarations of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment dated 10.12.2021 in Mat.Appeal No.738/2015.

The afore request of the petitioners - as made by their learned counsel, Sri.S.Vinod Bhat - was, however, opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent – Smt.Amrin Fathima, saying that there was no attachment over the property in question in OP(HMA)No.347/2013 by the Family Court, Mavelikkara; but that same was ordered by another Court in a different proceedings. She requested that, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners may not be acceded to.

In response to the afore submissions, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that the 1st respondent – Sub Registrar, is now incapacitated from acting because of the rival positions taken by the parties, particularly since the entry of attachment was endorsed on the files as per the provisions of Section 89(5) of the Registration Act, 1908. She, however, added that the Sub Registrar will adhere to any orders to be issued by this Court.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners - Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, submitted that attempt of the 3rd  respondent is to confuse this Court, because OP(HMA)No.347/2013 was  a continuation of O.P.No.1047/2011, originally filed by the 3rd respondent on the files of the Family Court, Alappuzha, which was then transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, and numbered as above. He submitted that, therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the assertions of the 3rd respondent.

When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be no doubt that if the order of attachment is by the Family Court, Mavelikkara in OP(HMA)No.347/2013, then it will have to be erased, going by the declarations in Ext.P5 judgment. That said, if O.P.No.1047/2011, originally on the files of the Family Court, Alappuzha, has been transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara and numbered as OP(HMA)No.347/2013, then it can only be seen as a continuation and the contention of the 3rd respondent cannot find merit.

However, since this Court is not in a position to answer the afore factual issue affirmatively or to speak on it, I am certain that the 1st respondent – Sub Registrar, must hear both sides and verify whether the order of attachment was originally issued in O.P.No.1047/2011 by the Family Court, Alappuzha, which case was then transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, and renumbered as OP(HMA)No.347/2013.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the 1st respondent – Sub Registrar, to act as above, after hearing both sides and going through all documents which they may produce in substantiation of their rival plea; resulting in an appropriate order, either refusing to delete the entry of attachment – for which, the reasons may be recorded – or deleting the same as per law.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct both sides to mark appearance before the Sub Registrar at 11 A.M. on 30.03.2022.