The main legal point established in the judgment is that property transfers made with an intent to defraud creditors are voidable, and the executing court's power is subject to the restrictions of Order 21 Rule 2.

1. As all the matters arise out of the miscellaneous orders passed in a suit i.e. E.A.Nos.3 and 10 of 2006 filed in E.P.No.61 of 2005 and also the attachment order passed in E.P.No.61 of 2005 in O.S.No.225 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, it is convenient to deal with them together.

2. The facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in all the matters, are as follows:

(a) The 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.3184 of 2008 and the sole respondent in both the revision petitions is one and the same person, by name, Manivasakam, who filed a civil suit in O.S.No.225 of 2003 as against the defendants, by name, Shanmugam and Baggyalakshmi, who are the revision petitioners, for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,84,200/-with interest stating that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs from him by executing a promissory note and also handed over the original sale deeds dated 10.09.1987 and 110. 1988 in respect of the suit properties, by creating equitable mortgage for the due repayment of the amount under the promissory note and that thereafter, failed to pay any amount and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,84,200/- with interest and in the event of failure of payment by the defendants, to order for sale of the hypothecated properties.

3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the loan amount and the trial court, on a consideration of both evidence oral and documentary, has decreed the suit, but dismissed the claim as against the hypothecation, on 15.03.2004. Against which, no appeal was preferred by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.61 of 2005 for attachment of the suit properties.

4. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the sons of the defendants, who are the appellants herein, filed E.A.No.3 of 2006 under Order 21 Rule 58(1)&(3) of C.P.C. stating that the suit properties were settled in their favour by their parents (defendants) by way of a registered settlement deed dated 30.11.2005 bearing registration No.5129/2005. Therefore, they have become the absolute owners of the suit properties and the judgment debtors had no right in the same and the properties can never be brought for sale and thus, they prayed to adjudicate their claim and to release the suit properties from attachment. The said application filed by the sons of the revision petitioners was dismissed by the Executing Court by an order dated 7.07.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the sons of the defendants filed C.M.A.No.3184 of 2008. Similarly, the revision petitioners/judgment debtors have filed E.A.No.10 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 2 C.P.C.before the executing court stating that one Gandhimani, brother of the decree holder, obtained a power of attorney from them on 27.01.1999 and by the strength of which, the said Gandhimani sold the property situated at Goundapalayam in favour of his brother, namely, the decree holder for a sum of Rs.1,36,529/- and he made the gain out of the said sale. Thus, the judgment debtors contended that the said sum of Rs.1,36,529/- has to be adjusted in the decree amount. The said application was contested by the decree holder, stating that the transaction referred to by the judgment debtors had nothing to do with the decree amount and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and prayed for dismissal of E.A.No.10 of 2005. After hearing both sides, the executing court has dismissed the said application, by its order dated 7.07.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the judgment debtors filed C.R.P.No.3521 of 2008. The court below, after perusing the records, ordered attachment of the suit properties, by its order dated 24.04.2009, against which, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.1414 of 2009 before this Court.

5. Since this Court feels that it is better to deal with the matters separately, firstly, we consider the issue involved in C.M.A.No.3184 of 2008.

6. Learned counsel appearing for t