JUDGMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 made in A.S.No. 98 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge at Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2012 made in O.S.No. 227 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.

1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No. 227 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode filed against the respondent/defendant for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from bringing the suit property for sale.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The contention of plaintiffs is that the suit property, an extent of 2878.5 sq.ft. along with building situated in Old S.F. No. 92/A, New S.F.No. 92/2 in Erode Town is originally belonged to one K.Muthusami as his self-acquired property. The said Muthusami has two sons viz., Loganathan and Kumar and two daughters viz., Manjula and Thulasimani. On 30.12.2002 under a registered settlement deed, the said Muthusami settled the suit property measuring 2878.5 sq.ft in favour of his second daughter. She accepted the said settlement and took possession of the property and on the same day, the said Thulasimani executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one V.Karthik and K.Baskaran and the said power holders sold an extent of 698 sq.ft. in favour of 1st plaintiff and subsequent to that, the 1st plaintiff sold the extent of 690 sq.ft. in favour of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2004. Thus, all the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are co-owners of the suit property and enjoyed the same as absolute owners of the suit property.

4. While so, on 21.06.2010, in “Dinamalar” publication, they found that the defendant has published number of items of property and the same were brought for sale by auction for the alleged sales tax dues payable by late K.Muthusami and his son Loganathan, who were said to be partners of one Kaveri Agencies. The plaintiffs are not aware of any such tax arrears and they are bonafide purchasers purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration. Hence, they are entitled to get protection under Sec.24-A of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The plaintiffs contended that on the date of purchase by 1st plaintiff, no such proceedings were either pending or brought to his notice by anyone and nor the properties were attached. Hence, they have filed a suit.

5. The defendant admits that the suit property belong to one K.Muthusami, but denied the other allegations. The contention of the defendant is that the said K.Muthusami and his son Loganathan were partners of one Kaveri Agencies and right from 01.12.1993 onwards, there were sales tax due and arrears upto the year of 1997 and the total amount of sales tax arrears comes around Rs.9 crores. The said Kaveri Agencies preferred an appeal before the appellate authority Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal I and II and also before this Court and all the appeals went against them. In fact, the suit property being an immovable property belong to the said K.Muthusami was attached and brought to sale by public auction as per the order under the Act and notices sent to legal heirs. Accordingly, aggrieved over the attachment of suit property, the plaintiffs filed the said suit.

6. The defendant further contended that the execution of settlement deed is void as per Sec.24-A of TNGST Act for the reason that any dealer create a mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer of his assets in favour of any person with the intention to defraud the revenue, such transfer shall be void. So also, the purchase made by 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs from the 1st plaintiff also nonest in law, thereby contending that the proceedings initiated under the provision of law is valid.

7. Before th