The main legal point established is that property conveyed to a Defendant's wife can be attached to satisfy a decree if the conveyance was done to evade execution, and legal heirs are liable to satisfy the debt incurred by the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.R.P.No.1565 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 19.11.2019 made in E.P. No. 26 of 2018 in O.S. No. 638 of 2000 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam.

In C.R.P.No.1566 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 12.11.2019 made in E.A.No.41 of 2019 in E.P.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam.)

Common Order:

1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 638 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the Revision Petitioner in these Civil Revision Petitions. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2019 made in E.P. No. 26 of 2018 in O.S. No. 638 of 2000 as well as the order dated 12.11.2019 made in E.A. No. 41 of 2019 in E.P. No. 26 of 2018, both on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam, had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The Plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 638 of 2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,783/- being the principal and interest due on two promisory notes dated 10.11.1997 and 09.12.1997 executed by the sole Defendant by name Rajendran in his favour for Rs.55,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively repayable with interest at 24% per annum.

3. In the suit, on notice, the sole Defendant Rajendran entered appearance by engaging Counsel but he did not file the written statement. Therefore, the Defendant was set ex parte on 12.01.2001. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the sole Defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte order through his counsel. However, he did not prosecute even that application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, on 09.12.2002, ex parte evidence was recorded in which the Plaintiff has marked Exs. A1 to A5 in support of the suit claim. On the same day viz., 09.12.2002, the suit was decreed ex parte. In order to execute the ex parte decree, the Plaintiff had filed E.P. No. 82 of 2004 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur for attachment of the property set out in the schedule of the Execution Petition. Subsequently, the Execution Petition No. 82 of 2014 was transferred to Subordinate Court, Palladam on it's constitution and renumbered as E.P. No. 26 of 2018.

4. When the Execution Petition was taken up for hearing, the sole Defendant Rajendran died. Therefore, his legal heirs namely his wife, daughter and son were brought on record as Respondents in the Execution Petition. On notice, the second Respondent, who is the wife of the deceased sole Defendant Rajendran, filed a counter statement contending inter alia that the property in Survey No. 426/2 and 426/2A, which are sought to be attached in the execution proceedings, was purchased by her through a sale deed dated 26.08.2013 from the power of attorney agent of her husband Rajendran. Therefore, it was contended that her husband Rajendran has no right over the property which was purchased in her name and consequently, the property cannot be attached in execution of the ex parte decree.

5. In view of the above specific stand taken by the second Respondent in EP No. 26 of 2018 being the wife of the deceased sole Defendant, the Plaintiff has taken out E.A. No. 41 of 2019 in EP No. 26 of 2018 contending that the properties sought to be attached are the estate of the deceased sole Defendant. The second Defendant in EP No. 26 of 2018 is his wife and therefore, she cannot feign ignorance of the decree passed against her husband. Further, the second Respondent, knowing fully well about the execution proceedings, alienated the properties by way of two sale deeds 22.08.2013 and 26.08.2013. Therefore, he prayed to reopen the execution application for the purpose of amendment of the execution petition appropriately.

6. A counter statement was filed by the second Respondent in E.A. No. 41 of 2019 contending that the Petitioner has no right to amend the Execution Petition and to proceed against the Respondents 3 to 4 or to sub