The court affirmed that ownership claims supported by clear documentary evidence can invalidate an attachment order under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC without necessitating a full trial.

ORDER

This application has been filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC seeking to raise the order of attachment granted by this Court on 10.02.2025.

2. The applicant/third party is the brother of the fifth respondent. The respondents 3 and 4 are the son and daughter of the fifth respondent respectively. The respondents 2 to 5 are the judgment debtors and the first respondent is the decree holder. For the sake of clarity and convenience, in the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in this application.

3. The applicant contends that he is the owner of the property and according to him, his property has been wrongly attached through this Court's order dated 10.02.2025. In support of his contention, the applicant relies upon the following documents, through which, he has traced his title over the property, which has been ordered to be attached by this Court.

(a) The Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 21.11.2023 entered into between the legal heirs of the deceased V.C.Ganesan, who was the original owner of the property.

(b) Cancellation of Power of Attorney bearing Document No.1555 of 2013 was executed by the judgment debtors. The said Power of Attorney was earlier granted in favour of the fifth respondent/judgment debtor through a registered document dated 21.06.2013.

(c) Execution Petition was filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtors on 24.07.2024.

(d) Cancellation of Power of Attorney bearing Document No.2423/2024 was executed on 19.08.2024.

(e) Release deed dated 15.07.2024 was registered in favour of the applicant, through which, the applicant claims that all the remaining legal heirs of the deceased V.C.Ganesan have released their share absolutely in favour of the applicant.

4. Relying upon the aforesaid documents, the learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant alone is the owner of the property, which has been ordered to be attached by this Court, and the judgment debtors do not have any right or interest over the same.

5. To show the bonafides of the judgment debtors, this Court had also directed the judgment debtors to file an affidavit before this Court that they do not have any right/title over the property, which was ordered to be attached by this Court, and that they will not claim any right over the same in the future as well. As directed, the judgment debtors have filed an affidavit and the same was also taken on record.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan Vs. Chandramaath Balakrsihnan and another [ 1990 (3) SCC 291 ] and would submit that as seen from the said decision, under a contract of sale entered into before the attachment, the conveyance after attachment in pursuance of the contract passes on good title inspite of the attachment. He would submit that in the instant case, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the legal heirs of the deceased V.C.Ganesan even prior to the date of order of attachment, and the release deed was also executed by the remaining legal heirs of the deceased V.C.Ganesan in favour of the applicant even prior to the date of attachment order. Though the said release deed was registered subsequently, but, it dates back to the date when the said release deed was presented for registration. Therefore, since presentation of the release deed was prior to the date of order of attachment passed by this Court, the applicant is having exclusive bonafide title over the property and therefore, the order of attachment is bad in law. He would further submit that even the Execution Petition was filed by the decree holder only after the release deed was presented by the applicant for registration. Therefore, he would submit that the order of attachment has to be set aside by this Court.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent drew the attention of this Court to the list of dates a