LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-426

PARIMALA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA ARASARADI BRANCH

Decided On August 21, 2018
PARIMALA Appellant
V/S
State Bank Of India Arasaradi Branch Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 10.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.67 of 2005 in O.S.No.257 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.III), Madurai.

(2.) The first respondent / Bank filed the said suit in O.S.No.27 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,67,32,6927/-, against the second respondent and two others, and the same was transferred to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.III), Madurai and re-numbered as O.S.No.257 of 2004. The appellants herein are the third parties to the suit.

(3.) According to the first respondent / Bank, the second respondent while working as a Manager in the first respondent's Bank, Arasasrdi Branch located at S.S.Colony, Madurai, from 22.06.1996 mis- appropriated funds to the tune of Rs. 2,67,32,692.27/-. Out of the said amount, the second respondent purchased various immovable properties with an intention to sell the properties at his convenience. Along with the suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.67 of 2002 for issuing a direction to the second respondent / second defendant therein to furnish the security for a sum of Rupees Three Crores within the time fixed by the Court, failing which, to order the attachment of the property and the same has been allowed. The second respondent failed to furnish the security and hence, the property was attached. One M. Nagarajan, filed claim petition in I.A.No. 67 of 2005, claiming to be the owner of the property stating that he has purchased the property from the second respondent by the deed of sale dated 18.11.1998. According to the said M.Nagarajan, he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. At the time of attachment, the second respondent was not the owner of the immovable properties and attachment before the Judgment effected is in valid. Pending claim petition, the said M. Nagarajan died and the appellants were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased M.Nagarajan.