The main legal point established in the judgment is that a buyer has a statutory charge on the seller's interest in the property for the return of the purchase money and interest, enforceable against the seller and all persons claiming under him.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.343 of 1992, was filed in the Sub-Court, Dindigul. In the suit, plaintiff sought for return of his advance money Rs.50,000/-from the defendants/respondents.

3. Later, the suit was transferred to the Sub-Court, Palani and became O.S.No.23 of 1996. The suit was decreed with future interest @ 6% p.a against all the defendants.

4. In A.S.No.71 of 2000, in the Principal District Court, Dindigul, 3rd defendant challenged the decree. It was allowed. The 3rd defendant had gone out of the decree. In the circumstances, plaintiff filed this Second Appeal against him.

5. Admittedly, at one point of time, Chinnadurai/first defendant owned the property situate in Palani. On 29.06.1989, under Ex.A2-Sale agreement, his wife Seethalakshmi/second defendant, as his power of agent [Ex.A1-power deed, dated 23.06.1989] had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- and under the sale agreement she had received Rs.50,000/-as advance. Admittedly, the sale agreement did not fructify into a sale deed. But, plaintiff's advance money remained with the 1st defendant.

6. In the circumstances, plaintiff filed O.S.No.343 of 1992, claiming his advance money as against Chinnadurai (first defendant) and his wife(second defendant). Since the first defendant had passed away, his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 4 to

9. 3rd defendant had purchased the property. Due to certain subsequent developments, he became 3rd defendant in the suit. In her written statement, 2nd defendant did not deny her receipt of Rs.50,000/-. However, a compromise i.e., under Ex.B-3 dated 03.03.1994, stated to have been effected between 2nd and 3rd defendants, whereunder 3rd defendant had agreed to settle the amounts due to the plaintiff. But, 3rd defendant took the stand that plaintiff is not a party to Ex.B-3, plaintiff cannot seek the amount from him and he is not legally bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff.

7. While the suit was pending in the Sub-Court, Dindigul, it was decreed exparte. In execution of the decree, in E.P.No.115 of 1992, the property was attached. It was also registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar's office (see Ex.A5). It has become an encumbrance (see Ex.A4-Encumbrance Certificate) on the property. In the circumstances, the trial Court/Sub-Court, Palani decreed the suit as prayed for against all the defendants. Except 3rd defendant, the other defendants kept quite.

8. The 3rd defendant took the matter in appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2000 to the District Court, Dindigul. The first Appellate Court after coming to the conclusion that Ex.B.3, compromise arrangement has not been proved allowed the appeal, thus, the suit was dismissed as against third defendant. That is how, now, the plaintiff is before us as against the third defendant.

9. In the second appeal, the following substantial question of law is framed:-

“Whether the first Appellate Court was correct in ignoring the third defendant from the liability in respect of the suit claim when he had purchased the property in question covered under the agreement pending suit and that too after the order of attachment passed by the trial Court”.

10. Question of 3rd defendant's liability centres around the attachment ordered by the Sub-Court, Dindigul in execution of its decree and the purchase of the property by the 3rd defendant.

11. According to Mr. P. Athimoola Pandian, learned Counsel for the appellant, the respondent had purchased the property, while the attachment order was in force, in other words, the charge over the property was in force, in such circumstances, the respondent is bound to pay the amount. The learned Counsel also referred to Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and would submit that the charge/burden over the property was created by operation of law by a Court order. It will follow the property and also the person who purchases or dealt with the property. In support of hi