K SARAVANAN Vs. SUBBULAKSHMISUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 20.08.2013 made in E.A.No.246 of 2011 in E.P.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. Facts of the Case:

(2.) The appellant is third party to the suit O.S.No.37 of 2006 and E.P.No.47 of 2011. The first respondent herein filed the said suit against the second respondent for recovery of money. The first respondent along with suit filed the application for attachment before judgment of the suit property on the ground that the second respondent is making arrangements to sell the property to the third party with an intention to defeat the interest of first respondent. The second respondent appeared before the Court and filed counter in the application giving an undertaking on 18.10.2006 that he will not alienate the property and give the power to any third party to deal with the property. Based on the said undertaking, application for attachment before judgment was dismissed. The first respondent gave a public notice in paper publication of "Dinamalar" dated 06.05.2007 about the filing of the suit and undertaking given by the second respondent and warned the general public about the pendency of the proceedings. After the suit was decreed, the first respondent filed E.P.No.47 of 2011 and obtained order of attachment and effected the said order.

(3.) According to the appellant, the property originally belonged to one Ramasamy Chettiar. From him, one Subbulakshmi/first respondent purchased the property on 16.11.1973. The said Subbulakshmi sold the property to one Balasubramania Aasari on 29.01.1975. The second respondent purchased the property from the said Balasubramania Aasari on 02.02.2006. In turn, the second respondent sold the property to one V.Balasubramanian on 22.06.2007. The appellant purchased the property from the said V.Balasubramanian on 12.11.2007 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property from that date onwards. In October 2011, an attachment notice was published in the schedule property. From the said notice, the appellant came to know that the first respondent is trying to sell the property through Court auction, against the interest of appellant. The appellant is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The appellant is not aware of the dealings between the respondents. The first respondent knowing fully well the purchase by the appellant has got order of attachment in her favour. The attachment is not sustainable. Appellant filed E.A.No.246 of 2011 in E.P.No.47 of 2011 and prayed for raising order of attachment.