Back
S. SOUNTHAR
A. Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
Syedshah Rep. By his Power Agent Heera Begum Vaikkalmettu Street Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.12.2020 in I.A.No.506 of 2016 in O.S.No.343 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub- Ordinate Court, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.)
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent seeking raising of attachment before judgment.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the 2nd respondent. Pending suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.987 of 2014 seeking attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent. In the said application, notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entered into sale agreement to convey the property, in respect of which attachment was sought for, in favour of power agent of the 1st respondent and his mother, Heera Begum. On acquiring knowledge about the said agreement, the petitioner's counsel issued a notice to said Heera Begum on 01.12.2014 informing her about the suit for recovery of money filed by him against the respondent in O.S.No.343 of 201
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC shall be adjudicated upon as if it is a regular suit, and any adjudication on the rights....
A transfer made with knowledge of an attachment before judgment can be contested as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted as adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.
Debt can be defined as an obligation to pay an ascertained sum of money, and therefore, a claim for compensation does not come within that purview.
The Court emphasized the importance of verifying the ownership of the property before making an attachment before judgment and upheld the rights of a third party purchaser under Order 38 Rule 10 of C....
Collusive transfer to defeat creditor voidable under execution proceedings despite preceding attachment if lacking bona fides.
Civil courts are enjoined to consider disputes between parties and when substantive rights are created and such rights are being flouted, it is for civil court to consider respective contentions and ....
The sale deed was upheld as valid under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act due to the absence of any fraud.
Executing court cannot invoke Section 53 TPA without plea and evidence; no interference if no saleable interest at attachment.
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
