ALLU APPA RAO RAMAYYA Vs. SIRIKI BAPU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.37 of 1996, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against one Jagarapu Simhachalam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,000/-, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 12.10.1984. In the initial stages of the suit itself, Simhachalam died and his legal representatives, being respondents 2 to 4 herein, were brought on record. Thereafter, the suit was decreed. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No. 106 of 1998, and got attached an item of landed property. At that stage, the appellant herein, filed E.A.No.71 of 1999, under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C., for raising the attachment. He pleaded that he purchased the said item of property, through sale deed dated 17.6.1996 from late Simhachalam, and that the same cannot be proceeded against, in the execution.

(2.) The 1st respondent opposed the application and contended that the sale took place, soon after a notice in an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. was received by late Simhachalam, and that the sale itself was fraudulent in nature. The executing court allowed E.A.No.71 of 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed C.M.A.No.14 of 2004, before the District Court, Vizianagaram. Through judgment, dated 18.7.2005, the appellate court allowed the C.M.A. Hence this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

(3.) Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that except pleading that the sale in favour of appellant was fraudulent, the 1st respondent did not plead any specific facts, much less adduce any evidence, to substantiate it. He contends that the sale took place much prior to the suit was decreed. He submits that the appellant did not have the notice of the pendency of the suit, and that being a bonafide transaction for consideration; it is exempted from the operation of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.