A purchaser’s property cannot be attached for another's debts if they are not a party to the debt proceedings.

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order of attachment passed by the 1^st respondent invoking Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

2. The facts in short are: The 4^th respondent herein was the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Society. The 5^th respondent was the President of the said Society. They had indulged in malversation of the funds of the Society. This resulted in proceedings being initiated against them under the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. An Award was passed to the tune of Rs.1,28,21,564.55 against them.

3. The petitioner is a third party to the Society. He claims to be an employee of the agricultural Department as an Assistant Seed Officer. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property attached in the impugned proceedings. The petitioner’s vendors are two persons by name Hemalatha and Jayagopi. They had alienated the property in favour of the writ petitioner by way of a registered sale deed in Document No.2961 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. The Document covers the property situated in Survey Nos.170/1, 170/1A, 170/2, 170/3 and 171/1B. The extent of the property alienated is

2398 sq.ft.

4. After the alienation had been made in favour of the writ petitioner, the 1^st respondent has attached the property for the dues of the 4^th respondent.

5. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

6. I heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.P.Senniyangiri, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

7. Mr.Chandrakumar states that on the date of attachment, the 4^th respondent was not the owner of the property. By the time, the attachment order was passed, the petitioner had purchased the same by way of a registered document. He states he cannot be made answerable for the dues of the 4^th respondent.

8. Mr.Senniyangiri urges that there is a collusion between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and the alienation has been made only in order to thwart the execution of the decree.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.

10. The execution of the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 19.07.2018 is not in dispute. For the dues of the 4^th respondent, the property of the writ petitioner cannot be attached. By the time the order of attachment was passed on 03.01.2019, the petitioner had become the owner of the property. He is neither a party to the Award passed by the 1^st respondent, nor a party to the execution proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent. Hence, I am of the view that the order of attachment, insofar as the property covered in Document No.2961 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018 is concerned, cannot be sustained.

11. With respect to the plea of Mr.Senniyangiri that it is a case of transfer to defraud the creditors is concerned, as the Society is a creditor by virtue of the decree, this order will not stand in the way of the said Society to present a suit to set aside the sale on the ground of fraudulent transfer, invoking Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.

12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed insofar as the property covered in the document of purchase of the writ petitioner is concerned. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.