IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
RFA NO. 436 OF 2004 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 10.03.2004 IN OS No.105/2001 OF
SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
LAWRANCE, S/o ALPHONSE,
VADAKKE VEEDU (KAILAS), POOVAR DESOM,
THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 STEPHINY, D/o SERJI VOIE, SANGAMAM,
KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT SHIJU
BHAVAN, RALIVILLA, KADAKKULAM, MULLOOR P.O., MULLOOR
DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 VELANSHYA JOHN, D/o STEPHINY, SANGAMAM,
KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT SHIJU
BHAVAN, RALIVILLA, KADAKKULAM, MULLOOR P.O., MULLOOR
DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
R1 & R2 BY ADV SRI.L.MOHANAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA No.436 of 2004 2
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff came up in appeal aggrieved by the non- grant of decree against the 2nd defendant and also that no charge was created over the property of defendants for the decree amount by the trial court.
The 2nd defendant was exonerated from the liability due to privity of contract. The transfer effected by way of a settlement deed by the first defendant to his daughter, the 2nd defendant, would not fall under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act simply on the reason that sufficient security was offered by way of deposit with a nationalised bank for the decree amount. The allegation that the title deed of the documents were handed over itself will not create any charge over the property unless the same amounts to a mortgage by deposit of title deed governed by Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. No such case was advanced. Hence, appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-