Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2436/2026 of Jawahar Vs T. Prabhakaran on 3 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026
Jawahar
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Prabhakaran
Ravindran (died)
2.Kalaiyarasi
3.R.Maheshkumar
4.R.Gurupriya
...Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in IA.No.491 of 2022 in IA.No.136 of 2020 in OS.No.122 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gurudass
For Respondents : M/s.P.Kaviya – for R1
*****
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in IA.No.491 of 2022 in IA.No.136 of 2020 in OS.No.122 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 122 of 2020, instituted for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 136 of 2020 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), seeking attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the second respondent/defendant. However, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, no orders were passed on the said application immediately, and the order of attachment was ultimately passed on 01.08.2022. In the meantime, the first respondent/third-party claimant filed I.A. No. 491 of 2022 under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to raise the attachment. According to the first respondent, he had purchased the property from the second respondent/defendant on 25.06.2020 for valid consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-. He claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value, having
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026 purchased the property after verifying the title deed and the encumbrance certificate. He further contended that he came to know of the attachment order dated 01.08.2022 only on 22.09.2022, when the Court Amin attempted to affix the attachment order on the property. Alleging that the attachment had been obtained by suppressing material facts, the first respondent sought to raise the attachment. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit opposing the application. However, the trial Court allowed the application and raised the attachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The trial Court, while allowing the application filed by the first respondent, observed that the order of attachment in I.A. No. 136 of 2020 was passed only on 01.08.2022, whereas the sale in favour of the first respondent had been effected under Ex.A1 dated 25.06.2020. The trial Court further held that the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the suit had been instituted for recovery of money and no right to immovable property was directly and specifically in question therein. The trial Court accordingly concluded that the
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026 attachment effected on 01.08.2022 could not operate against the property which had already been conveyed in favour of the first respondent by the second respondent/defendant on 25.06.2020. Holding that the revision petitioner could not seek to enforce the attachment against a property that no longer belonged to the second respondent/defendant, the trial Court allowed the application and raised the attachment.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and that, before purchasing the property on 25.06.2020, he had verified the title deed and the encumbrance certificate. It was further submitted that the first respondent was not a party to the suit and that the attachment order, having been passed only on 01.08.2022, subsequent to the purchase, could not be enforced against the property purchased by him.
5. This Court, upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the order passed by the trial Court, finds no irregularity or illegality warranting interference in the
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026 exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the trial Court. No costs.
03.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2436 of 2026 03.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 01:07:59 pm )