R. KARUPPANNAN Vs. NATARAJAN (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 17/7/2017 passed in A.S. No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Salem, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 27/10/2014 made in R.E.A. No.137 of 2004 in R.E.P. No.126 of 2002 in O.S. No.193 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) The Second Appeal proceedings arise from a Suit for Recovery of money filed by one N. Gunasekaran, as Plaintiff, in O.S. No.193 of 2002 against one K.R. Jagadeesan, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem. The Suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,025.00 based on a Promissory Note executed by the Defendant in the said Suit, namely K.R. Jagadeesan. The Suit came to be decreed on 26/4/2002. The Defendant remained ex parte and the District Munsif, Salem, proceeded to pass an ex parte Decree. The property was sold by the Executing Court and one R. Karuppannan was its successful Auction Purchaser. The Decree-holder initiated Execution proceedings in R.E.P. No.126 of 2002. In the said Execution proceedings, the Third party, namely the Respondents herein filed Miscellaneous Application in R.E.A. No.137 of 2004, arraying the Decree holder as Judgment-debtor and the Auction Purchaser as Respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the said Applicants in R.E.A. No.137 of 2004 that they have purchased the property belonging to the Judgment-debtor on 13/12/2002, for a valuable Sale consideration of Rs.14,13,500.00 and they have also taken possession of the property. According to the Petitioners, they came to know that the Decree-holder had filed I.A. No.290 of 2002 under Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC, seeking Attachment of the Suit property before Judgment. The Suit was Decreed ex parte as already noted on 26/4/2002 and the Attachment Order in I.A. No.290 of 2002, which had been passed earlier also became absolute on the date of Decree (i.e.,) 26/4/2002. According to the Petitioners, the Decree-holder initiated Execution proceedings on 23/7/2002 and sought for bringing the Suit property for sale. Even in the said Execution proceedings, the Defendant remained ex parte and on 2/9/2002, an Order came to be passed.