S.PONNUSAMY Vs. S.BOOPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This case has been heard through video conference)

(2.) The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in OS.No.129 of 2012.

(3.) The brief facts is that the revision petitioner/plaintiff had lend a sum of Rs.3.00lakhs to the second respondent/first defendant- Kaliannan on 1/6/2008 for his urgent family expenses. In pursuance to which he executed a promissory note in favour of the revision petitioner on the same day for the said amount agreeing to repay with interest at 1.50per Rs.100.00p.m. The first defendant did not paid any amount or interest in spite of plaintiff's several request. The revision petitioner demanded to repay the loan amount, whereas the second respondent/first defendant without repaying the amout attempted to alienate his immovable properties. Thereby the revision petitioner was constrained to file suit for recovery of money against the second respondent/first defendant in OS.No.206 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal. In the suit, revision petitioner filed IA.No.924 of 2009 to furnish security and notice was ordered by the trial Court. The first defendant was served with the notice and he furnished some other security and since it was not acceptable, the plaintiff objected to it. During the pendency of the said application, the first defendant sold the suit property to the second defendant/first petitioner on 27/1/2010. Whileso, after full fledged enquiry, the trial Court in IA.No.924 of 2009 in OS.No.206 of 2009 ordered attachment of the property. Aggrieved against the said order of attachment, the second respondent/first defendant filed an appeal in CMA.No.1 of 2011 before the District Judge, Namakkal. After detailed enquiry the said appeal was also dismissed on 30/11/2011 by the District Judge, Namakkal. Thereafter, the second respondent/first defendant did not pursue with the matter further. Since, the sale deed executed by the second respondent/first defendant in favour of the first respondent/second defendant was only with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the revision petitioner filed the present OS.No.129 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Namakkal to declare the sale deed dtd. 27/1/2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void being a fraudulent transfer and to consequentially restrain the defendants and their men from in any manner altering the nature of the suit property.