AMMAVASAI Vs. TULASIKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in execution proceedings. The first respondent had filed a suit against the second respondent for recovery of money. The said suit was filed on 14.09.1999 along with an application for attachment before judgment. The trial Court directed the second respondent to furnish security on 14.09.1999. Since the security was not furnished, the properties were directed to be attached on 19.07.2000. On coming to know about the attachment, the appellant filed an application in I.A.No.96 of 2004 under Order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking adjudication of his claim.

(2.) According to him, the second respondent sold the property which is the subject matter of attachment, to him on 15.09.1999 and the sale deed has been registered on 23.09.1999. Therefore, according to him, the attachment of the property made thereafter is not valid and sought for raising the attachment. The said application was resisted by the first respondent, namely, the plaintiff contending that the appellant/claimant had knowledge of the fact that the second respondent was indebted to her and she had also issued a notice as well as a telegram to the wife of the claimant informing her about the debts due to her from the second respondent as well as the institution of the suit.

(3.) According to her, the notice was issued on 20.08.1999 and the telegram was issued on 17.09.1999. Therefore, according to the first respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/claimant had purchased the property with the knowledge of the existence of debt and attachment.