ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. These Revision Petitions haves been filed against the order passed by the Execution Court in dismissing the application filed to raise the attachment in respect of 7 cents of land in T.S.No.287/2.

2. The facts leading to file revision is as follows:

2. (a) The First Respondent bank have filed five different suits as against other Respondents for recovery of money in the year 1986. It appears that the suit has been decreed. The First Respondent filed Execution Petition in the year 1996. In the meanwhile Third Defendant in the main suit one Mr. B.R. Narasimman has executed a Gift Deed in respect of 7 cents in favour of the Revision Petitioner on 16.8.1990. Thereafter the First Respondent has sought attachment of the entire property. Accordingly, Execution Court passed an order of attachment in the year 2003. Immediately, the Revision Petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C., to raise attachment. However, the Execution Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Gift Deed is not valid and the same has been executed only to defeat the rights of the creditor. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that on the day when the attachment was effected, Respondents 2 to 7 have no right in the suit property. In the suit property an extent of 7 cents have already been transferred in the name of the Revision Petitioner in the year 1998. There was no attachment of the property till 2003. Hence submitted that the Execution Court has simply come to the conclusion that the Gift Deed is not maintainable without any basis.

4. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the First Respondent submitted that the bank has filed suit in the year 1986 and the suit was decreed in the year 1987. Whereas Gift Deed was executed in the year 1990 much after the decree, only in order to defeat the rights of the bank. Hence, the Execution Court has correctly considered and ordered for execution which does not require any interference.

5. I have head both sides and perused the materials. It is not in dispute that the bank has filed the suit in the year 1986 and the decree has been passed in the year 1987. However, the bank has not taken any efforts to execute the decree. Only in the first time in the year 1996, they filed an application to execute the decree. On filing the application to attach immovable properties of the judgment debtor, attachment was passed only in the year 2003. These facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the entire extent of the property belong to judgment debtor is around 50 cents in S.F.No.787/2. Whereas Ex.A.1 filed in the Claim application confined only to 7 cents that means what has been transferred under gift deed in favour of the Revision Petitioner is only 7 cents and remaining 43 cents are in the name of the Judgment debtors. At any event, admittedly on the date of attachment the title in respect of 7 cents has already been transferred in favour of the Revision Petitioner. The suit is filed for mere recovery of money and not even attachment was sought during the pendency of the suit. Even after the decree, Execution Petition was filed after a decade and attachment order was passed only in the year 2003. These facts are not in dispute.

6. section 64 of C.P.C. deals with private alienation made after attachment. If the properties already attached, subsequent to such attachments any private alienation is made, such private alienation is void as per section 64 of C.P.C. Therefore, it is very clear that the transaction takes place after the attachment passed by the Court would become void transaction. The law declares such transaction is void. In the absence of any attachment the transfer will not become void. At the most it could be presumed that such transfer made with the intent to defeat the rights of the decree holder. Even such conclusion is established, such transfer is not vo