C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos. 2634 to 2640 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 05.09.2023

DELIVERED ON: 05.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2634 to 2640 of 2015

and MP(MD).Nos. 1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2015

CRP(MD).No.2634 of 2015:

Muralikrishnan

...Petitioner

Vs

1.M.Shanthi

2.P.Jeyapal

....Respondents

PRAYER in CRP(MD).No.2634 of 2015: Civil Revision Petition filed

under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records

relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 25.09.2014 made in I.A.No.12

of 2013 in I.A.No.91 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the I

Additional District Judge, Madurai, set aside the same and consequently

allow the civil revision petition.

1/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos. 2634 to 2640 of 2015

(In all revisions)

For Petitioner

: Mr.J.Anandkumar

For R1

: Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan

For R2

: No appearance

C O M M O N O R D E R

All the revision petitions have been filed by the decree holder in

a money suit challenging the allowing of claim petitions filed under Order

38 Rule 10 of C.P.C.

Factual background:

2.The revision petitioner as plaintiff had filed O.S.No.72 of 2009

on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai for the relief of

recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed

I.A.No.91 of 2009 seeking an order of attachment before judgment. The

said application was allowed on 28.10.2009. The suit was decreed exparte

on 15.02.2010. The decree holder filed E.P.No.1 of 2013 to bring the

attached property for sale.

3.While the execution petitions were pending, seven claim

petitions in I.A.Nos.12 to 18 of 2013 were filed by seven claimants

contending that all of them have purchased the property on 23.04.2008

2/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos. 2634 to 2640 of 2015

from the defendants through his power agent. They have further contended

that they had purchased the property one year prior to the filing of the suit

and therefore, on the date of passing of the order of attachment before

judgment, the defendant was not the owner of the property. Hence, we

prayed for rasing the order of attachment. All these seven interim

applications were filed in I.A.No.91 of 2009.

4.The decree holder filed a counter in all the claim petitions

contending that the claim petition under Order 38 Rule 10 of C.P.C is not

maintainable and only a petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C is

maintainable. The decree holder further contended that the power deed that

was executed by the defendants in favour of one Ayyadurai and Rajendran

was cancelled on 22.02.2008 and another power deed was executed by the

defendant on 25.02.2008 in favour of one Padmanabhan. However, the

sale deed in favour of the claimants has been executed by Ayyadurai and

Rajendran on 23.04.2008 without any authority whatsoever. Therefore, the

claim petitioners do not have any title to the property and the claim

petitions have been filed with a malafide intention to drag on the execution

proceedings.

3/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos. 2634 to 2640 of 2015

5.The trial Court relied upon Order 38 Rule 10 C.P.C to arrive at

a finding that the sale deed in favour of third party has been executed one

year prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the said property could not

have been attached under I.A.No.91 of 2009 on 28.10.2009. However, the

trial Court did not go into the issue of validity of the sale deed and

proceeded to hold that the sale having taken place one year prior to the

order of attachment, would not be binding upon the third party and raised

the order of attachment. Challenging these seven orders, the present

revision petitions have been filed.

Submissions of the Counsels:

6.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had

contended that