PUSHPA Vs. M. ANDI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil miscellaneous appeal on hand is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.E.A.No. 107 of 2014 in R.E.P.No. 3 of 2013 in O.S.No. 4 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, dated 10.02.2015.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant Smt.Puspha by one Kumbalalakayan @ Kodiyappan. The sale deed was executed on 20.02.2006. The appellant became the absolute owner even before the institution of the suit by the first respondent against the second respondent for recovery of money. The suit in O.S.No.04 of 2006 was instituted on 17.03.2006 and as on the date of the institution of the suit, the second respondent was not all the owner of the subject property, which was sold in favour of the appellant on 20.02.2006. The property was sold by Kumbalalakayan @ Kodiyappan and Senthil. The second respondent was an attesting witness in the sale deed. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the sale became absolute and is no way connected with the suit filed by the first respondent for recovery of money.

(3.) The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent on 27.07.2009. The first respondent filed execution petition to attach and sold the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the execution petition. Totally, 13 items were mentioned in the Schedule to the execution petition dated 02.02.2010. In view of the fact that the property purchased by the appellant was also included in the schedule to the execution petition, the appellant was constrained to file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC to conduct the adjudication.