1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the order dated 19.07.2017 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.22 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The brief facts of the appeal are that the appellants/third parties filed E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.22 of 2012 under Order XXI Rule 58 and Section 151 of C.P.C., before the Executing Court for raising attachment of petition schedule property, house bearing Municipal Nos.2-6-97 and 2-6-98, situated at Weekly Bazar, Nizamabad.

3. The appellants claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule property. They have purchased the said property by a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2011, for a consideration of Rs.58 lakhs, from the 2nd respondent herein, and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of purchase.

4. Originally, the 1st respondent filed a suit against the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.14 of 2010 for recovery of money. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.11,96,440/- with interest @ 18% against the 2nd respondent.

5. The 1st respondent filed E.P for execution of the decree by attachment of the property of the 2nd respondent, which the 2nd respondent already offered as a security in I.A.No.2978 of 2010 filed in the suit O.S.No.14 of 2010. The Court ordered conditional attachment in the said interlocutory application, wherein the 1st respondent has furnished security by way of giving an undertaking.

6. In the interlocutory application I.A.No.2978 of 2010 filed for attachment of petition schedule property, one of the appellants got examined as PW.1 before the Executing Court. Ex.P.1–Certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 03.11.2010, Ex.P.2–Certified copy of Report of Bailiff dated 18.10.2010, Ex.P.3–Certified copy of Panchanama made by the Bailiff, Ex.P.4–Tom-tom Receipt dated 18.12.2010, Ex.P.5–Notice dated 23.10.2010 issued to the general public, and Ex.P.6–Copy of warrant of attachment are marked in his evidence.

7. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.R.1–Certified copy of Undertaking given in O.S.No.14 of 2010 and Ex.R.2–Publication made in Eenadu Daily Newspaper dated 21.07.2010 are marked.

8. The trial Court, in para-12 of its judgment in O.S.No.14 of 2010, observed that the 1st respondent has given an undertaking dated 04.08.2010 to the effect that she would not alienate, transfer or sell the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. But the 1st respondent fraudulently transferred the property on 03.11.2010 by executing a registered Sale Deed in favour of the third parties/appellants herein.

9. The Executing Court, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the transfer of property is a fraudulent transaction under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Executing Court further observed that though there was no attachment on the date of purchasing the property by the appellants, they have knowledge about the litigation as a public notice was issued by respondent No.1 stating that the Court issued an attachment order on 20.07.2010, which is prior to purchase of the property by the appellants. On these grounds, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that the transfer made by respondent No.2 was a fraudulent transfer and dismissed the claim petition.

10. On a perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court, as per Ex.R.1–CC of Undertaking given in O.S.No.14 of 2010 that the undertaking was given by the 1st respondent, who is the defendant before the trial Court. She stated in her undertaking that the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1864 of 2010 for attachment of her house property in Nizamabad before judgment.

11. The defendant filed her counter in the said application stating that she created charge over her property by way of mortgage to several persons. To clear off those debts, the defendant intended to sell her house and got published a notice in ‘Saakshi’ Newspaper calling for objections from the public for intende