Point of Law: Debt can be defined as an obligation to pay an ascertained sum of money, and therefore, a claim for compensation does not come within that purview.

JUDGMENT :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

1. The Sub Court, Ernakulam, allowed I.A. No. 2520 of 2017 in O.S. No. 230 of 2016, which was filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8, read with Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per that order, attachment of A to C schedule properties made by the court in I.A. No. 4876 of 2016 on 27.02.2017 was lifted. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code.

2. O.S. No. 230 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking a decree of realisation of Rs. 5.42 crores from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I.A. No. 4876 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking attachment of A to C schedule properties belonging to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per the order dated 27.02.2017 those properties were attached under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code. The 1st respondent, claiming that he came to know about the attachment when he obtained encumbrance certificates, filed I.A. No. 2520 of 2017. He contended that he purchased the said properties as per Exts.A1 to A3 sale deeds much before the order of attachment and he being a bona fide purchaser, the attachment was illegal and liable to be lifted.

3. The 1st respondent resisted the said application by filing a counter. He contended that the transaction between the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 took place much earlier and when he realised the deception perpetrated by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to extract money from him, he made complaints before the police. Investigation into the matter was eventually taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2015 itself. Consequent to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail filed by them, respondent No. 2 was arrested and detained in jail. It was much thereafter, in May 2016 alone, the 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule properties. He purchased knowing fully well about the transaction between the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Having purchased the properties with the knowledge of the pendency of criminal cases against respondents No. 2 and 3 and their liability towards the appellant, the transfers in favour of the 1st respondent are fraudulent transactions and unsustainable in law.

4. The Sub Court received Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B12 in evidence. After hearing both sides, I.A. No. 2520 of 2017 was allowed holding that there was nothing on record to show that at the time of sale, the 1st respondent was aware of the transaction or to probabilize that the assignments vide Exts.A1 to A3 were anyway fraudulent.

5. On 18.02.2019, this appeal was admitted. Operation of the impugned order was stayed initially for a period of two weeks. The stay has been extended from time to time and is still in force.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Despite service of notice, respondents No. 2 and 3 did not choose to appear before this Court.

7. The sole question that arises for consideration is, whether any interference to the order of the court below lifting attachment of the petition schedule properties made as per the order in I.A. No. 4876 of 2016 is required.

8. Exts.A1 to A3 are the sale deeds by virtue of which, the 1st respondent purchased A to C schedule properties. He purchased A-schedule property from the 2nd respondent on 18.05.2016 for a sale consideration of Rs. 16,46,000/- as per Ext.A1. He purchased B-schedule property from the 3rd respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 34,70,000/- on 19.05.2016 as per Ext.A2. He purchased schedule property from the 3rd respondent on 30.05.2016 for a sale consideration of 1,10,00,000/- as per Ext.A3. Those properties were attached by the Sub Court, Ernakulam, as per order dated 27.02.2017 in I.A. No. 4876 of 2016. Indisputably, the attachment was ordered much after the execution of Exts.A1 to A3. Therefore, the question arises is whether the transactions as per Exts.A1 to A3 are fraudulent ones coming