The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale pendente lite, made in breach of an injunction and during the pendency of a suit, is circumvent to the rights of the contracting parties and does not render the transaction void ab initio, but remains subservient to the pending litigation.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal on 04.07.2012, made in E.A.No.29 of 2010 in E.P.No.29 of 2006, filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C., to release the petition mentioned properties, brought on sale from attachment, on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Erode, the present appeal has been filed. Parties are addressed, as per the litigative status in E.A.No.29 of 2010.

2. Facts in brief are as follows:-

The petitioners are third parties. The 1st respondent is the decree holder. Respondents 2 to 6 are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.29/2006 in 0.S.No.13/2004. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the said suit, as against respondents 2 to 5, for refund of the advance amount of Rs.10,80,000/-, on the basis of the sale agreement, dated 22.06.1995. Vide judgment and decree, dated 23.07.2004, the suit has been decreed, in favour of 1st respondent. The Court below has passed an order, directing respondents 2 to 6, to pay a sum of Rs.15,64,315/-, with subsequent interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. Respondents 2 to 6 have failed to pay the said decree amount and hence, the 1st respondent has filed an execution petition, as against respondents 2 to 6, for attachment of the petition mentioned property and for sale. The petition mentioned property in the execution petition is situated at Erode Taluk, Kollankovil village, in S.F.No.707/1 to an extent of punja acres 5.50, new R.S.No.114/1, punja hectors 0.02.5 and R.S.No.114/3 punja hectors 1.84.2, out of which, an extent of 3.92½ punja acres with all other amenities.

3. The petitioners/claimants in E.A.No.29 of 2010 have contended that they have purchased the above mentioned property, from respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors, on 18.09.2002 and that they are bonafide purchasers. According to them, at the time of execution of sale deed, no attachment was made, with respect to the petition mentioned property in the claim petition and hence, they have prayed the Court below, to release the petition mentioned property, from attachment and sale.

4. The 1st respondent/decree holder, in his counter statement, has stated that the petition mentioned property originally belonged to respondents 2 to 4 and one Pongiammal and they entered into a written sale agreement with 1st defendant/decree holder on 22.06.1995 and on the said date, they received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the decree holder, since they have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, he issued a notice to them on 04.06.1999. Then, he filed a suit against the said persons in O.S.No.69/2000, before the Sub Court, Erode and lateron, the suit was transferred to the file of District Court and renumbered as O.S. No.13/2004. Pending suit, one of the land owner Pongiammal, died intestate, leaving behind her legal heirs and therefore, the 6th respondent has been added as party to the proceedings. The 5th respondent was represented by her father, 3rd respondent, Balasubramaniam. Since the respondents 2 to 5 have not defended the matter, a decree has been passed in favour of the 1st respondent on 23.07.2004.

5. According to the 1st respondent, even after the decree passed in the suit, till the date of filing E.A.No.29 of 2010, respondents 2 to 6 have not challenged the decree obtained by him. Thereafter, he filed an execution petition in E.P.No.29 of 2006. In the execution proceedings also, respondents 2 to 6 remained exparte. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that once an agreement has been entered into between the parties, a charge is automatically created on the agreed property, for the prompt security for the amount paid, under the sale agreement. After knowing the decree, as well as the filing of the execution petition, respondents 2 to 6, in order to defeat his interest and prevent him, from realizing the decree amount, have fraudulently created a sale deed in favour of the petitioners, who are their close relatives. Hence, the 1st respondent has contended that the petitioners are