Madras High Court
Jeyarathi Chandrabhai vs Veluchamy ... 1St on 8 April, 2022
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.Jeyarathi Chandrabhai
2.Selvam ... Petitioners/
Appellants/
Petitioners/3rd party
Vs.
1.Veluchamy ... 1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/
Auction Purchaser
2.Subburam Assari ... 2nd Respondent/
3rd Respondent/
3rd Respondent/
Defendants
3.Maragatham
4.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents 3 & 4/
Respondents 4 & 5/
Respondents 4 & 5/
LR's of the Plaintiff
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, set aside the fair and decreetal order in C.M.A.No.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
42 of 2010, dated 25.02.2011 against the order in E.A.No.209 of 2004 in
E.P.No.106 of 1992 in O.S.No.455 of 1986 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and by allowing the E.A.No.209 of 2004
in E.P.No.106 of 1992, dated 25.02.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.George Raja
for Ajmal Associates
For R-1 : Died
For R-2, R-3 & R-4: No appearance
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed challenging an order
rejecting a claim application. The present petitioner is the third party to
the suit. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.455 of 1986 before the District
Munsif Court, Tirumangalam on 22.08.1986. These disputed properties
were attached by way of an order of attachment before judgment in the
year 1986. While the order of attachment was subsisting, the revision
petitioner/third party has purchased the disputed property from the
defendant on 19.03.1987. According to the revision petitioner, the order
of attachment was raised on 17.11.1988. The suit came to be decreed on
13.04.1989. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed E.P.No.106 of 1992. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
the execution proceedings were pending, the third party has filed
E.A.No.209 of 2004 making a claim over the property on the ground that
he has purchased the suit schedule properties on 19.03.1987 and the
subsequent order of attachment during the execution proceeding is bad
on the ground that when the judgment debtor was not the owner of the
property on the date when the attachment order was passed.
2. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have arrived at a
finding that when the third party/revision petitioner has purchased the
suit schedule properties on 19.03.1987, when the order of attachment
before judgment was in subsistence.
3. As per Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, whenever a
private alienation of property takes place after the order of attachment,
the said alienation is void. When sale deed alleged to be in favour of the
third party revision petitioner, dated 19.03.1987 is void, the question of
making a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 97 does not arise. The
Courts below have rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any
merits in this case. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Munsif Court,
Thirumangalam.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
btr
Order made in
C.R.P(MD)No.1284 of 2012
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
