Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
D.V. Raghavan vs A.J. Suresh Kumar And Another on 8 December, 1999 cites

Alamelu Ammal vs Chinnaswamy Reddiar on 2 December, 1988

17. The bona fides of the appellant has been discussed by the lower Court. It is now settled law that the attaching creditor need not file a separate suit under Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act in a representative capacity to putforth his case, that the transfer was in fraud of creditors, and that he is entitled to plead by way of defence in the claim proceedings vide Alamelu Ammal v. Chinaswamy Reddiar, 1988 (II) MLJ 395 : 1989 (I) L.W. 131. In fact the question of filing a separate suit is barred after the amended provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. and all questions relating to title or interest in the property attached have to be decided and adjudicated only in the claim proceedings and not by separate suit.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Dr.V.K. Jayalakshmi vs Mrs. M.S. Meenakshi And Another on 23 February, 1998

4. Per contra, Mr. G.Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that having regard to the pro-visions of Order 21, rule 54, Clause 3 Madras Amendment, the attachment would take effect from the date of the Order, that the learned subordinate Judge had categorically found, that there was collusion between the appellant and the second respondent, that there were absolutely no bona fides on the part of the appellant, that there were vital discrepancies between what was stated in the sale deed and the oral evidence adduced, that the order of attachment was not in any way defective either in form or in substance, that the sale in favour of the appellant was not supported by consideration and had been executed only nominally for collateral purpose with a view to defeat the claim of the creditors. The learned senior counsel also relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions, (1) Alamelu v. Chinnasamy, 1989 (1) L.W. 131 : 1988 (II) MLJ 395; (2) Jayalakshmi v. S.M.Muthiah, 1989 (I) L.W. 549 : 1989 (I) MLJ 411;
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Vengalaveeran vs Rajendran And 4 Ors. on 30 July, 1997

In similar circumstances, E. Padmanabhan, J, in Vengalaveeran v. Rajendran and 4 others, , had considered the question as to the date from which the order of attachment will take effect. In that case, the revi-sion petitioner filed an E.A. in an execution petition under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. to raise the attachment dated 3.2.1994 stating that he had purchased the property on 16.6.1986 and was the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property, that he had been in enjoyment of the same, that the order of attachment effected on 3.2.1994 as if it was still owned by respondents 3 to 7 judgment-debtors, was a misconception. The executing court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, rendered a finding that with full knowledge of the attachment order dated 5.6.1986, Ex.P.1 sale deed had been created without payment of any consideration, that a sham and nominal sale deed has been created with a view to defeat the claims of the decree-holder, that the claim petition was highly belated as the first attachment ordered on 5.6.1986 and the claimant had purchased the same only on 16, 6.1986 with fun knowledge of the order of attachment. The first Appellate Court confirmed the fair and decrial order passed by the executing Court. The purchaser fixed a revision petition and contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value and that he was not aware of the attachment order dated 5.6.1986 and effected on 17.6.1986 and he had fixed the present application for raising the attachment ordered in the Execution Petition on 3.2.1994. It was further contended that on the date when the order of attachment was passed in the Execution Petition, the petitioner was the owner as he had purchased the property on 16.6.1986 as seen from Expel and that the attachment was inoperative and invalid.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1