C.M. RAJU Vs. PARVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THESE three appeals are filed by several objectors who had entered appearance in execution proceedings instituted by the respondent - decree holder, in the following background:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would contend that on a bare reading of Section 52 of the TP Act, it is evident that it is only a transfer made of the property in question by a defendant during the pendency of a suit or other proceeding which is contemplated under the said provision and it does not contemplate a circumstance when one of the plaintiffs or the petitioners executes such a deed of transfer and that the same would not apply to such a transfer. This contention is not tenable as the section clearly speaks of "any right to immovable property which is directly and specifically in question" and the same being dealt with by "any party to the suit or proceeding". Hence, the admitted circumstance that the transfers have taken place in the knowledge of the eviction proceedings in respect of the very same property, is not in dispute. If this be so, the object of Section 52 of the TP Act would be rendered otiose if the argument canvassed to the effect that since the transfer is by one of the petitioners in the eviction petition and that such a transfer would not attract the rigour of Section 52, cannot be accepted. If this argument is accepted, the very object of the provision would be diluted. Hence, in the admitted circumstances that the appellants had willfully purchased the property notwithstanding their knowledge of the eviction proceedings, which is evident from the very recitals contained in the sale deeds that are executed in their favour, it cannot be said that the court below has committed any error in holding that they were not in a position to raise objection to the eviction order being executed in respect of the premises.