Point of Law: During pendency in any court having authority within limits of India of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to suit or proceeding so as to affect rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of court and on such terms as it may impose

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2019 made in A.S.No.17 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2017 made in E.A.No.387 of 2013 in E.P.No.132 of 2010 in O.S.No.226 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.17 of 2017 dated 5.4.2019, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur in E.A.No.387 of 2013 in E.P.No.132 of 2010 in O.S.No.226 of 2009 dated 20.7.2017, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

“(i) Whether the Courts below have committed manifest error in dismissing the claim petition insofar as item No.1 is concerned as there was no attachment on 8.10.2009 when the property was sold by the second respondent in favour of appellant?

(ii) Whether the Courts below have erred in not giving a finding regarding the patent collusion between the second respondent and the decree holder especially when the second respondent had deposed on the side of the decree holder before the Court below?

(iii) Whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of fraudulent transaction, when admittedly there are no plurality of creditors to avail the ground of fraudulent transaction under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act?

(iv) Whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the claim petition when admittedly it has been held by the Courts below that the second respondent has admittedly not taken any steps to challenge the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/appellant?

(v) Whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the claim petition when admittedly on the date of attachment on 11.5.2012 the property was already sold three years before to the petitioner/appellant by the second respondent?”

3. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is the third party purchaser of the suit properties. When the first respondent-Murugan filed the suit in O.S.No.226 of 2009 on 29.9.2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/-, based on the pro-note executed by the second respondent-Ramamoorthy, he moved I.A.No.1513 of 2009 for attachment of the petition properties before judgment. Along with the said application, he also moved a third party affidavit stating that the second respondent-Ramamoorthy has been trying to alienate the petition properties to the appellant-Annakkili, W/o Ayyanar. In view thereof, the first respondent sought for a direction to be given to the judgment debtor-Ramamoorthy to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.83,868/-, failing which the petition properties shall be attached. At request of the second respondent’s counsel, the said I.A.No.1513 of 2009 was adjourned to 26.11.2009 for filing of counter affidavit. In the meanwhile, before any order of attachment was passed, the appellant purchased the second item of the petition property on 30.7.2009 from the second respondent and pursuant thereto, she also started enjoying the second item of property and other properties and also obtained patta no.804 in her name. Even the first item of petition property and other properties were also sold by the second respondent along with his father Kuppusamy for a sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and there is a recital in the said document that the second respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- towards the loan borrowed from one K.Murugan of Vadivanguppam, out of which the appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the balance Rs.1,000/- alone was paid to the second res