V.CHITRAVELU Vs. P.G. SANKARANARAYANAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.723 of 2017 in I.A.No.108 of 2017 in O.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District Judge at Madurai.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Vth Additional District Judge at Madurai. The appellant has filed the above suit against the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,22,240/- on the strength of the Demand Promissory Note, Cheque and by transferring funds through Bank accounts and the suit is pending before the Vth Additional District Judge, Madurai.

(3.) It is submitted that along with the plaint, the appellant filed I.A.No.108/2017 for attachment of the 2nd respondent/defendant's residential building at Chettinaickenpatti, Dindigul and the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Madurai, by order dated 20.03.2017, attached the entire property. The 1st respondent claimed half share in the attached property, has filed I.A.No.723/2017 under Order 38 Rules 8 and 10 and section 151 CPC, to raise the order of attachment in respect of his half share in the attached property stating that the attached property was jointly purchased by him, his father K.P.Ganesan, 2nd respondent/defendant and his younger brother Karuppanna Raja in the name of the father K.P.Ganesan and after his death, the property devolved on the 1st respondent and other heirs. While so, the 1st respondent's mother executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 11.05.2012 settling her 1/12 share in favour of the 1st respondent, thereby, the 1st respondent became owner for half of the attached property. Karuppanna Raja also executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 19.05.2014 settling his 5/12 share in the property in favour of the 2nd respondent/defendant. Considering the facts and documents submitted along with the claim petition, the learned Vth Additional District Judge, by order dated 24.11.2017 was pleased to allow I.A.No.723/2017 and vacated the attachment in respect of the entire property, instead of vacating the attachment in respect of half share of the property, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.