ANNAKKILI Vs. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.17 of 2017 dated 5.4.2019, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur in E.A.No.387 of 2013 in E.P.No.132 of 2010 in O.S.No.226 of 2009 dated 20.7.2017, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is the third party purchaser of the suit properties. When the first respondent-Murugan filed the suit in O.S.No.226 of 2009 on 29.9.2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/-, based on the pro-note executed by the second respondentRamamoorthy, he moved I.A.No.1513 of 2009 for attachment of the petition properties before judgment. Along with the said application, he also moved a third party affidavit stating that the second respondent-Ramamoorthy has been trying to alienate the petition properties to the appellant-Annakkili, W/o Ayyanar. In view thereof, the first respondent sought for a direction to be given to the judgment debtor-Ramamoorthy to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.83,868/-, failing which the petition properties shall be attached. At request of the second respondent's counsel, the said I.A.No.1513 of 2009 was adjourned to 26.11.2009 for filing of counter affidavit. In the meanwhile, before any order of attachment was passed, the appellant purchased the second item of the petition property on 30.7.2009 from the second respondent and pursuant thereto, she also started enjoying the second item of property and other properties and also obtained patta no.804 in her name. Even the first item of petition property and other properties were also sold by the second respondent along with his father Kuppusamy for a sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and there is a recital in the said document that the second respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- towards the loan borrowed from one K.Murugan of Vadivanguppam, out of which the appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the balance Rs.1,000/- alone was paid to the second respondent and as per the sale deed, the petition properties were enjoyed and possessed by the appellant after obtaining patta no.804 in her name.