J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this second appeal is to the Judgment and Decree dated

25.07.2006 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.4.2004 passed in O.S.No.41 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Karaikal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the trial Court. The 2nd defendant is the appellant herein. After the death of the second defendant, the legal representatives of the second defendant have been brought on record. The first and the second plaintiffs are the first and second respondents in this appeal. The first defendant is the third respondent in the appeal.

3. The suit in O.S.No.41 of 2001 is filed for declaration. The facts of the case is as follows:-

(a) The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.41 of rd

2001. The 3 respondent herein and the original appellant are the defendants in the suit. The suit in O.S.No.41 of 2001 is filed praying for a decree declaring that the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2000 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant in respect of the house property is not valid and binding upon the creditors of the first defendant, including the plaintiffs. (b) The plaint averments are that the first defendant/Baskar(third respondent herein) borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the first plaintiff by executing a promissory note on 14.08.1995. The first defendant failed to repay st the loan due under the said promissory note. The 1 plaintiff therefore filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 1999 and obtained a money decree against the first defendant on 06.03.2000. The suit was filed on 19.07.1999. The first defendant on the very same date/14.08.1995 borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the second plaintiff. The said loan was also not repaid. Hence, the second plaintiff also filed a suit against first defendant on 19.07.1999 and obtained a decree in O.S.No.44 of 1999 on 06.03.2000. Both the suits were decreed. After the two suits filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 1999 and O.S.No.44 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Judge, Karaikkal, and also after execution petitions filed on 13.04.2000 for realization of fruits of the two decrees, the first defendant had sold his house property to the second defendant under the registered sale deed dated 08.05.2000. The sale of the house by the first defendant to the second defendant is fraudulent and made with interest to defeat and delay the first defendant’s creditors. The plaintiff submits that the said sale of the house property by the first defendant to the second defendant is not valid and binding on the creditors of the first defendant. Therefore, the suit is filed for a declaration that the sale of the said property by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 08.05.2000 is not valid and binding upon the creditors of the first defendant including the plaintiffs. The plaint averments further read that the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed dated

08.05.2000 nd (c) The 2 defendant/original appellant filed written statement stating that the suit is not legally maintainable as the plaint should have been filed and tried after getting permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC because the suit should have been one instituted as a representative suit as provided u/s.53 of nd the Transfer of Property Act. The 2 defendant submitted that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property being a transferee in good faith and for valid and st adequate consideration. The 1 defendant left a due of Rs.2,00,000/- to a creditor in Nagapattinam by name Krishna Finance and this defendant stood as st a guarantor to the loan of the 1 defendant. The debt was left unpaid with accrued interest. The suit property was sold by the registered sale deed dated 08.05.2000 and the sale deed is with bonafides for valid consideration. The st passing of valid consideration recited in the sale deed delivered to th