ORDER :

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order dated 2.12.2015 passed in E.A.No.17 of 2012 in E.P.No.52 of 2011 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District, wherein and whereby, the petition filed by the respondents herein, under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC seeking to raise the attachment was allowed.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 and 2 are the 3rd party/claimants and respondent No.3 is the defendant. A suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of money based on a pronote executed by the 3rd respondent/defendant herein. When the 2nd respondent/defendant tried to alienate the property, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition to attach it before judgement. Subsequently the suit also decreed ex-parte on 09.06.2011. Since the 3rd respondent/defendant failed to pay the decree amount, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.52 of 2011 and brought the petition scheduled property for auction. During the pendency of the Execution Proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed a petition in E.A.17/2012 under Or.21. Rule 58 and claimed that they are the owners of the property.

3. The averments of petition in E.A.17/2012 in brief:-

According to the respondents 1 and 2, the scheduled property was originally belonged to their mother, Mrs. Ayeesha Beevi and she has executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 18.10.2010 in their favour. Earlier, the defendant/3rd respondent had fraudulently obtained a Settlement Deed from Mrs. Ayeesa Beevi by promising to maintain her but that was subsequently cancelled on 07.11.2008. Thereafter, this revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent/defendant colluded together and created a pronote and managed to get a decree in order to grab the property. Hence the respondents 1 and 2 have filed this claim petition.

4. The brief averments of the counter filed by the revision petitioner:-

The respondents 1 and 2/claimants and the 3rd respondent/defendant colluded between themselves and filed the application just to defeat the decree obtained by the petitioner. The settler Ayesha Beevi who settled the petition mentioned property in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant cannot unilaterally cancel the same, since the 3rd respondent/defendant is the owner of the petition mentioned property. Hence the trial Court is right in ordering attachment of the said property.

5. The submissions advanced by both the learned counsel were heard and perused the materials.

6. It appears that the petitioner who is the plaintiff/decree holder has got an order of attachment of the property before judgement. Subsequent to the decree he has also filed the execution petition to execute the decree by brining the property for sale. It is not in dispute that the mother of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, Ayesha Beevi has executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant on 18.7.2008. The contention of the claimants is that Ayesha Beevi had executed the settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant pursuant to her assurance that she would maintain her. And that was cancelled by Ayesha Beevi, since the third respondent failed to maintain her.

7. After cancelling the settlement deed dated 18.07.2008 on 07.11.2008, Ayesha Beevi executed an another settlement deed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants on 18.10.2010. The claimants claimed that by virtue of the second settlement deed dated 18.10.2010, they have taken possession of the property and they are enjoying the same as its owners.

8. The revision petitioner would contend that the earlier settlement deed which was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant on 18.07.2008 was a gift deed executed by Ayesha Beevi and that it has been acted upon. It is further contended that Ayesha Beevi cannot unilaterally cancel the said settlement deed on her own and she h