COMMON JUDGMENT

The defeated claimant objector is the appellant herein.

2.The common facts in all the three appeals are as under:-

(i) The appellant herein is the objector in execution proceedings and third party to the decree and claims to be the owner of the property situated in Door No.35, Karuvelankundu Street, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli Town, which is mentioned as third item in the schedule to the excution proceedings in E.P.No.312 of 2007. He claims to have purchased the schedule property from one Venkatachalam, S/o.Dhanshkodi Kone, through his power agent Vaaikkan Konar by a registered sale deed bearing No.2018/2005, dated 29.04.2005 for a valid consideration and he is in possession of the same from the date of purchase. The registration copy of the sale deed is produced along with the petition in E.P.No.313 of 2007. The tax reciepts stand in his name from September 2005 and the copy of the order of transfer of name in his favour by Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, dated 10.09.2005 and payment of property tax even on and from 21.09.2005 are produced along with the petition in E.P.No.313 of 2007.

(ii) He claimed that he is in possession of the property and also sold the property to another persons namely, Thirumalai and Meena on

15.12.2005. The main plea in the objector petition in E.A.No.442 of 2010 in similar to the other Execution Application is that the appellant had purchased the schedule property on 29.04.2005 and the first respondent / decree holder filed a original suit against the respondents 2 to 4 only in the year 2006. At the time of filing of the suit, the title of the petition schedule property is vested with him. In other words, the appellant claims that he become the absoulte owner of the petition schedule property at the time of filing of the suit and neither the vendor by name Venkatachallam nor the respondents 2 to 4 had any right or title over the suit property and he claims that his property cannot be attached and he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration.

(iii) The claim petitions were resisted by the decree holder/ first respondent.

(iv) The learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, has considered all the three claim petitions in E.A.Nos.404, 405 and 442 of 2010 and by a common order dated 28.01.2011 has dismissed the execution applications in connection with O.S.Nos.206, 208 and 224 of 206 respectively. Against which, he preferred CMA Nos.3, 4 and 5 of

2011, before the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the same were dismissed. Hence, the above three Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals.

3.These civil miscellaneous second appeals are admitted on the following common questions of law:-

(i) When the applleant has purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.2005 whereas the suit itself filed only in 2006 whether the Courts below are right in holding that the order of attachment is valid totally ignoring that on the date of filing the suit and passing an order of attachment the defendant therein was not the owner of property?

(ii) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to the present case and the sale of the appellant is a fraudulent transfer with intent to defeat the creditor when admittedly on the date of sale no proceeding before any Court is pending and as such whether the Courts below have wrongly interpreted and applied the Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

(iii) When the first respondent has applied for attachment and sale of property as if the judgment debtor alone had interest over the property without complying the mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit and an encumbrance certificate from the office of the Sub Registrar as per Form No.68.A as contemplated under Rule 182 and 191 of the Civil Rules of Practice whether the Courts below are right in holding the attachment is valid?

4.The lower Court record reveals that originally, the first respondent herein filed three suits in