Abdul Basith Kurikkalakath v. Shafi Mohammed @ Shafi Mohamed Khalid and Ors., 2026

The petitioner was a decree holder who obtained a monetary decree from a UAE court against the first respondent.

The judgment debtor subsequently came to India after allegedly avoiding an arrest order in the UAE.

Before the execution proceedings were initiated in India, the judgment debtor gifted his property to his wife.

The wife subsequently mortgaged the property, cleared the bank dues and sold it to a third party.

The decree holder impleaded the wife in the execution proceedings and sought attachment of her independently owned personal properties.

He argued that the wife was aware of the allegedly fraudulent transfer and that, under Mohamedan Law, her properties could therefore be proceeded against.

The executing court rejected the request, holding that the wife's independent properties could not be attached for the husband's decree debt.

The Kerala High Court upheld the executing court's decision refusing attachment of the wife's independent properties.

The Court found no provision under the applicable personal law, CPC or Transfer of Property Act permitting the decree holder to proceed directly against the wife's independently owned assets.

The Court held that a decree holder cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree and make a person liable merely on the basis of personal law.

However, the Court clarified that the decree holder was not remediless.

He was granted liberty to approach the executing court under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to challenge the alleged fraudulent gift.

The executing court would have to conduct an enquiry into whether the transfer was intended to defeat or delay the decree holder's rights.

If the fraudulent nature of the transfer is established, the gift and consequential transaction may be vitiated.

The judgment draws a clear distinction between attachment of independent property and challenge to a fraudulent transfer.

The Court protected the basic principle that execution of a decree must remain within the four corners of the decree.

A person who is not a judgment debtor cannot ordinarily have independently owned assets attached simply because of their relationship with the judgment debtor.

At the same time, the Court recognised the risk of judgment debtors transferring assets to relatives to frustrate legitimate recovery.

Section 53 provides the appropriate statutory mechanism for investigating such transactions rather than permitting direct attachment of unrelated personal assets.

The ruling therefore balances third-party property rights with the interests of decree holders seeking to prevent fraudulent asset transfers.

Importantly, the Court did not finally decide whether the gift was fraudulent; it left that question for determination by the executing court after an appropriate enquiry.

The decision reinforces that allegations of fraud must be examined through the proper statutory procedure, rather than by expanding execution proceedings beyond the liability created by the decree.