J U D G M E N T

The Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2011 passed in O.A.No.54 of 2008 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The original application in O.A.No.54 of 2008 was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Vellore to attach the properties described in the Schedule to the petition under Section 8 of the TNPID Act. The First respondent/ Deputy Superintendent of Police filed the said application on the ground that the complaints were received on 12.11.2007 against the accused/T.S.Kannaiyan and 16 others who were running the Finance Company along with other accused under the name and style of M/s.Sapthagiri Finance and two other Financial Establishments called M/s.Vellore Sapthagiri Investments and M/s.Vellore Sapthagiri Benefit Fund and the said case was registered in Crime No.03/07 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 & 421 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. The depositors have deposited their hard-earned money to the tune of Rs.1,15,55,000/- [Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand Only]. Subsequently, many other depositors were also filed complaints. Near about 409 depositors are aggrieved due to non-refund of their deposit amount and the accused persons allegedly cheated to the tune of Rs.12,37,51,900/- [Rupees Twelve Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and Nine Hundred Only].

3. During the course of investigation, it is found that the accused/

Mr.T.S.Kannaiyan, together with Mr.K.Vinothkumar, Dr.K.Lakshmi Priya sold the schedule mentioned properties to the appellant/Mr.A.Habeebur Rehman, S/o.A.Mohaman Ameen Sahib through the Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.2005 in vide Document No.2492 for a consideration of Rs.7,73,550/- [Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Only]. The Investigating Authority found that the actual value of the properties would be more than Rs.30 Lakhs. The properties were grossly undervalued in the impugned sale deed dated 28.11.2005.

4. On the date of the alleged sale transaction, the depositors were making frantic demands to receive interest or the principal from the concerned Financial Establishments. Finding that the depositors would resort to legal proceedings seeking attachment before judgment of the properties of the respondents 1, 2 & 3, the impugned sale transaction was brought about in haste to defeat the lawful claims of the depositors. Thus, the malafide intention of the accused persons in transferring the properties was obvious and the appellant is not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration as per the market value prevailing in that locality. The transfer of the properties was done with an intention to avoid attachment over the property. The alienation was not done in good faith for consideration, but it is a colourable transaction created by the partners/Directors in the Financial establishments in order to cheat the depositors.

5. The appellant contested the case before the Special Court by stating that the Schedule Mentioned Property was purchased by the appellant by way of registered sale deed dated 28.11.2005. It is contended that he is doing business in Beedies and Leathers for more than 25 years in that locality and got lot of properties. Thus, there is no need for him to collude with the Financial Company. The contention of the appellant before the Special Court was that he is a bona fide purchaser and purchased the property for sale consideration and therefore, the sale is to be protected. It is contended that the subject property was an ancestral property of the respondent/Partner in the Financial Company and the said Mr.T.S.Kannaiyan/second respondent herein got a share in the property through partnership deed dated 05.07.1965. In view of the fact that it is the ancestral property, the same was not purchased from and out of the money collected from the depositors. Thus, the sale is to be validated and the application filed under Section 8 by the Deputy