The petitioners are aggrieved with the sale proceedings initiated against the property of the 3rd respondent which the petitioners contend, has been purchased by them in auction conducted by the Family Court. The petitioners are the wife and daughter of the 3rd respondent, who had claimed for maintenance against the 3rd respondent. It is also submitted that there was an attachment of the said property and eventually when decree was passed, the property was brought to sale and the petitioners purchased the property in the sale conducted on 02.08.2004. It is also contended that mutation has been effected as is evident from Ext.P2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank however, would contend that the property belonging to the 3rd respondent, was sold to the 4th respondent long prior to the attachment, allegedly on 23.12.1991. It is the 4th respondent, who created the mortgage in the year WPC.26025/2011 : 2 :
2000, is the specific contention. The Bank would contend that the sale conducted by the Family Court was, long after the sale of the property by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent and hence, the 3rd respondent had no subsisting title on the property, which the Family Court could have attached and sold.
3. It is to be noticed that these contentions cannot be looked into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners would have to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, for adjudication of the factual aspects. Leaving open such remedy, the writ petition stands closed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge