1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel.

2. Leave granted on the oral request of the counsel for the Appellant to correct the name of the Appellant in the memo of appeal. The amendment be carried out forthwith. Verification is dispensed with.

3. This appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2012 on a Chamber Summons that was taken out by the Appellant for raising an attachment which was levied in respect of immovable property. The property consists of office premises being A-1, Inder Mohini Co-operative Housing Society Ltd; 1/22, Dadabhai Road, Linking Road (Extension), Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054.

4. In a suit instituted by the First Respondent against the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent, a decree was passed on 5 April 2004 by the Third Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in the amount of Rs.78.39 lakhs together with future interest @ 6% p.a. An Execution Application was instituted before this Court in 2006 (Execution Application No.441 of 2006), in the course of which an attachment was levied on the immovable property in question. The Appellant took out a Chamber Summons for raising the attachment, claiming title on the basis of a registered deed of transfer dated 29 January 2005. The attachment was levied on 8 November 2006. The Chamber Summons for raising the attachment was dismissed by the learned Single Judge for the following reasons:

"3. The applicant has not paid any consideration thereunder. The consideration is shown by way of certain adjustments of liabilities. The transfer of M/s.Mahalakshmi Factoring Services Ltd; is represented by its authorised signatory and constituted attorney one Mr.P.Manivelan. Even despite the transfer Mr.P.Manivelan continued to pay the society charges for the suit flat. The transaction is neither bonafide, nor clear. The transfer in favour of the Applicant is rightly rejected by the Society and must be also rejected by the Court. Based upon such a transfer the execution of a valid decree obtained by the Plaintiff cannot be frustrated. There is no transfer from the Defendants to the Applicant/Claimant/Objector."

5. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Appellant, having raised a claim based on title to the immovable property, in the course of execution proceedings, it was necessary for the Executing Court to adjudicate upon the claim. Instead, it has been urged that the learned Single Judge without framing any issue and without allowing an opportunity to the Appellant to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that the transaction on the basis of which the Appellant claims possession was neither bona fide nor clear and rejected the transfer in favour of the Appellant. Counsel submitted that a claim by a third party purchaser who sets up an independent title in the course of execution proceedings has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court bearing in mind the principles which are enunciated in Order XXI, Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the First Respondent that the Executing Court has dealt with the case of the Appellant and if the Appellant desired to lead any evidence in support of its claim of title, it was for the Appellant to assert a right to do so before the learned Single Judge. In the present case, it has been urged that the transfer of title to the Appellant has taken place without actual payment of money since the ostensible consideration is an adjustment of the dues owing to the Appellant. Hence, it is urged that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in the appeal.

7. For the purposes of the present appeal it will be necessary for the Court to indicate the basis on which the Appellant has claimed title to the property which forms the subject matter of t