Sales executed during valid attachment orders are voidable, reaffirming the need for bona fide acquisition and acknowledgement of existing encumbrances.

JUDGMENT :

1. One Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy who is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and a third defendant in another suit for permanent injunction is the appellant herein.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.The suit schedule property in both the suits are one and the same and it was initially owned by one A.Krishnamurthy. The said A.Krishnamurthy had borrowed loan from M/s.Ajantha Trading Corporation. The said corporation had filed O.S.No.467 of 1972 for recovery of the loan amount. Pending suit, an order of interim attachment of the suit schedule property was passed in I.A.No.378 of 1972 on 23.06.1972. The attachment was made absolute later on 29.06.1972. While the order of interim attachment was in force, the said Krishnamurthy has executed a registered sale deed in favour of Murugan Bankers under Ex.A1 on 04.10.1972. The Murugan Bankers in turn has sold the property in favour of Durai who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 1990 under Ex.A2 dated 18.11.1972.

3.The property was brought to Court auction in E.P.No.871 of 1974 and auction was held on 12.02.1975. One Mr.N.Govindaraj was the successful purchaser. The said sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on 23.04.1976.

4.The auction purchaser (Govindaraj) had entered into a sale agreement with one Ramadoss on 07.03.1983 under Exhibit B1. Thereafter, the auction purchaser/Govindaraj has executed a registered release deed in favour of the original owner/judgement debtor namely A.Krishnamurthy under Ex.B2 on 04.04.1983. Based upon the said release deed, the said Krishnamurthy had executed a registered power deed in favour of one Ramadoss under Exhibit B18 on 25.09.1989. Thereafter, the said Ramadoss had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy (who is the appellant in the present appeal) on 15.03.1994 under Ex.B10.

5.Based upon the sale deed dated 18.11.1972, Durai had filed O.S.No. 32 of 1990 as against M.Govindaraj, Ramadoss and Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy seeking a prayer for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Relying upon Exhibit B10 sale deed dated 15.03.1994, Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy had filed O.S.No.1437 of 1994 seeking permanent injunction. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court. The trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in O.S.No.32 of 1990 filed by N.Durai as prayed for and dismissed O.S.No.1437 of 1994 filed by Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy. The said Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy had filed A.S.No.172 and 173 of 2001 before the District Court, Trichy challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in both the suits. The First Appellate Court had dismissed both the appeals filed by Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present second appeals have been filed by Thirugnanasambanda Moorthy.

6.The second appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are sustainable in law as they have not appreciated the entire evidence available on record and the correct proposition of law applicable to the facts of the case? “

(B) Submissions on the side of the counsels appearing on either side are as follows:

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the sale deed executed by Krishnamurthy under Ex.A1 in favour of Murugan Bankers on 04.10.1972 is a void document, in view of the fact that an order of attachment made by the trial Court was subsisting. In such circumstances, the said Murugan Bankers cannot pass on any title to Mr.N.Durai (the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 1990) under Ex.A2 dated 18.11.1972.

8.The learned cou