Madras High CourtCRP/1309/2016dismissed

P. Arjunan v. J. Bellie

2016-04-27Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :27.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA CRP (NPD) No.1309 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.7367 of 2016 P.Arjunan ....

Petitioner .Vs.

1. J.Bellie

2. D.Allimuthu ....

Respondents Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order & decree dated 17.11.2015 in E.A.No.45/2014 in E.P.No.50/2011 in O.S.No.95/2008, on the file of Sub Court, Udagamandalam.

For Petitioner : Mr.Bijesh Thomas ***

O R D E R

The second respondent, as the plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2008 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,25,885/- from the first respondent/defendant before the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam and the same was decreed on 04.12.2009. Based on the said decree, the second

respondent/plaintiff filed execution petition in E.P.No.50 of 2010 before the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam. On 20.02.2014, the property of the first respondent was ordered to be sold. Against which, the revision petitioner/third party has filed a claim petition in E.A.No.45 of 2014 in E.P.No.50 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 17.11.2015. Aggrieved over the same, this revision petition has been filed by the third party/claimant.

2. The first respondent herein suffered a decree and as the decree amount has not paid, the property has been brought for sale. This decree has been passed on 04.12.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son on 26.12.2011. There is a clear observation by the Executing Court that the son, who did not take part in the payment of the decree amount, payable by the father, has chosen to take advantage of the settlement deed in order to evade the payment of decree amount. With this observation the E.A.No.45 of 2014 in E.P.No.50 of 2011, has been dismissed.

3. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Lower Court. The Settlement deed has been executed 2 years after the decree, obviously with an intention to evade the payment of decree amount and also with a view to ensure that property is not made available towards discharge of decree amount. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

27.04.2016 arr/mrp

S.VIMALA.J arr/mrp To The Sub Court, Udagamandalam.

CRP (NPD) No.1309 of 2016 27.04.2016