N. MURUGESAN Vs. B. SHIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff challenging the fair and decreetal order, dated 18.12.2015, passed in A.No. 86 of 2014 in I.A.No. 87 of 2013 in O.S. No. 60 of 2013 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the present civil revision petition, are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that though the 1st respondent/3rd party projected the case as if the property mentioned in the petition belongs to the brother of the 2nd respondent/1st defendant, the Court below has rightly rejected the said contention by relying upon the evidence of the 1st respondent/3rd party and also documents marked on the side of the 1st respondent/3rd party. He would further submit that anticipating that the revision petitioner/plaintiff would file a suit, the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 1 and 2 have filed a caveat petition and the counsel, who appeared for the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 1 and 2, took notice in the suit and also in the petition filed for attachment before judgment on 16.04.2013 itself. In order to defeat the right of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the 2nd respondent/1st defendant on 17.04.2013 settled the property in favour of his unmarried daughter, who in turn sold the property in dispute to the 1st respondent/3rd party. Hence, the settlement deed executed by the 2nd respondent/lst defendant is hit by section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act and the subsequent fraudulent transaction i.e., the sale deed executed by the daughter of the 2nd respondent/lst defendant in favour of the 1st respondent/3rd party, cannot be sustained.