K. RAJA Vs. C.N. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal on 04.07.2012, made in E.A. No. 29 of 2010 in E.P. No. 29 of 2006, filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C., to release the petition mentioned properties, brought on sale from attachment, on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Erode, the present appeal has been filed. Parties are addressed, as per the litigative status in E.A. No. 29 of 2010. Facts in brief are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioners/claimants in E.A. No. 29 of 2010 have contended that they have purchased the above mentioned property, from respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors, on 18.09.2002 and that they are bona fide purchasers. According to them, at the time of execution of sale deed, no attachment was made, with respect to the petition mentioned property in the claim petition and hence, they have prayed the Court below, to release the petition mentioned property, from attachment and sale.

(3.) The 1st respondent/decree holder, in his counter statement, has stated that the petition mentioned property originally belonged to respondents 2 to 4 and one Pongiammal and they entered into a written sale agreement with 1st defendant/decree holder on 22.06.1995 and on the said date, they received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. According to the decree holder, since they have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, he issued a notice to them on 04.06.1999. Then, he filed a suit against the said persons in O.S. No. 69/2000, before the Sub Court, Erode and lateron, the suit was transferred to the file of District Court and renumbered as O.S. No. 13/2004. Pending suit, one of the land owner Pongiammal, died intestate, leaving behind her legal heirs and therefore, the 6th respondent has been added as party to the proceedings. The 5th respondent was represented by her father, 3rd respondent, Balasubramaniam. Since the respondents 2 to 5 have not defended the matter, a decree has been passed in favour of the 1st respondent on 23.07.2004.