MARAPPAN Vs. M. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act read with Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'), against the judgment and decree dtd. 21/12/2015 made in C.M.A.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the fair and final order dtd. 28/2/2006 made in I.P.No.63 of 1999 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

(2.) Before the trial Court, the appellants herein filed I.P.No.63 of 1999 under Ss. 6 to 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, stating as follows:

(3.) Counter statement has been filed by the sixth respondent before the trial Court, denying that that the properties described in the schedule to the Insolvency Petition, absolutely belonged to the first respondent and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The petitioners and the respondents are all belonging to the same local area and each one know each other, apart from the sale proceedings being known to both parties. The alleged Promissory Notes and demand of payment, are denied on the ground that the Promissory Notes are created for the purpose of the case. The contention of the appellants/petitioners that the sixth respondent is aware of the debt due to the petition, is denied and in order to get unlawful gain from the sixth respondent, the appellants colluded and had come forward with the Insolvency Petition. Further, the sixth respondent purchased an extent of undivided 448 Square Feet vacant site from the first respondent and one Prabakaran. The first respondent is entitled only for half-share therein. Even the schedule of properties described in the petition, is denied. It is the stand of the sixth respondent in the counter statement that he purchased the property, i.e. 448 Sq.Ft. from the first respondent and one Prabakaran for value and consideration and that the sale proceedings are genuine and valid. From the date of purchase, the sixth respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The first respondent, having his non-ancestral properties in S.F.No.45/14, 19, 20 and S.F.No.39-1, 6B, 13 and 45/12, 17 in Pattakaranpalayam Village in Perundurai Taluk worth about more than Rs.5.00 lakhs and hence, the petitioners (appellants herein) are not entitled for the claim made in the I.P.