G SUMATHI Vs. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 made in A.S.No.72 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 04.07.2005, made in E.A.No.218 of 2001 in E.P.16 of 2000 in O.S.No.223 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The appellant has purchased a house property from the second respondent. The first respondent as creditor to second respondent filed O.S.No.223 of 1998 on 15.7.1998. The suit was decreed on 28.10.1999, and an order of attachment of the property was made on 18.1.2001. While so, the appellant purchased the property from the second respondent on 26.2.2001 in pursuance of an alleged sale agreement dated 1.7.1998. Now at this stage, in pursuance of the decree in O.S.No.223 of 1998 and the subsequent attachment, by which the property was brought to sale, in E.P.No.16 of 2001, the appellant filed E.A.No.218 of 2001. The E.P.No.16 of 2001 for attachment and sale of the property was posted for hearing and subsequently adjourned on several dates. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present petition to raise the attachment and sale of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition is filed in collusion with the second respondent to defeat the decree obtained by the first respondent.

(3.) A perusal of the sale deed would show that there was an agreement of sale on 1.7.1998 executed by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. The alleged sale agreement has not seen the light of the day. Apart from that, neither original nor the copy of the same was produced before the court. In this regard, the explanation on the part of the appellant is that after execution of sale deed, he returned back the sale agreement to the vendor. No reason whatsoever is attributed as to why the agreement of sale was returned to the vendor after execution of sale deed, and there is also no explanation as to why if actually there was a sale agreement dated 1.7.1998, no sale was effected for nearly three years.