VENUGOPALAN Vs. ANILKUMAR S/O CHUDUKATTUNKAL PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/decree holder/purchaser in Court auction is the appellant herein. The decree holder/purchaser in Court auction challenges the order of the first appellate Court reversing the order of the execution Court and granting redelivery of the property. The contesting respondent is the 1st respondent, who was a stranger to the suit and who claims to have purchased the property which was the subject matter of the suit, from the 2nd respondent herein, who was the defendant/judgment debtor.

(2.) THE substantial questions of law arising from the order of the first appellate Court are reframed as follows, with consent from both counsel:-

(3.) THE 1st respondent then filed a claim petition before the execution Court , claiming inter alia that he had no notice with respect to the earlier agreement and with respect to the sale of property by the Court. The 1st respondent also contended that about 3.479 cents of property he purchased from a third party also has been included in the properties delivered on execution, to the appellant/decree holder. The execution Court, however, found that the transaction between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent was vitiated by fraud and hit by Section 53 of the T.P.Act. The claim petition was rejected. The 1st respondent was in the first appellate Court, challenging the said rejection of his claim. The appellant herein filed a Cross Objection, contending that even without notice Section 55(6)(b) of the T.P.Act provides him with the right to proceed against the property and the third party purchaser cannot seek annulment of a sale only for the reason of absence of notice. Section 55(6)(b) takes within its fold and applies the charge with equal rigour on those purchasers with notice or without notice.