CRP/932/2026 of Indumathi Vs Aslam Yusuf on 28 August 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the decree holders in an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Chief Small Causes Judge, Chennai, in MCOP.No.63 of 2010.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

3. The 1st respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, was saddled with liability to pay compensation in respect of which, the execution petition has been laid for recovery of Rs.74,40,846.50/-. The petitioners sought to proceed against the immovable property of the 1st respondent and the Executing Court, finding that the property has been settled on the 1st judgment debtor's son and it did not belong to the 1st respondent and therefore, held could not be attached, in furtherance of the execution proceedings. Challenging the dismissal of the said attachment application, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would bring to my notice that the settlement deed is a conditional settlement, which confers absolute right on the son of the 1st judgment debtor, only after the lifetime of the 1st judgment debtor. In this regard he has taken me through the covenants of the settlement deed executed by the 1st judgment debtor. It is also his submission that the said settlement deed itself is not a bonafide transaction, since it is during the pendency of the OP proceedings and only in order to avoid liability, the settlement has been executed.

5. Be that as it may, on going through the settlement deed, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, at Clause 2 the settlement deed dated 11.01.2013, the 1st respondent has covenanted as follows: “2.The Settlees after the life of settler shall be the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property with full and complete powers of alienation and all rights of ownership without any let or hindrance whatsoever and free from all encumbrances by virtue of this Settlement Deed”.

6. Thus, the settlement deed is a conditional settlement deed and it even borders the characteristics of a Will. However, this Court need not go into these issues for the limited purposes of entertaining the revision petition to proceed against the said property for recovery of the award amount in their favour. The 1st respondent has retained life interest in the subject property and has clearly expressed his intention that the settlees would become the absolute owners, only after the lifetime of the 1st judgment debtor. In the light of the above, I do not see why the said property should not be proceeded against. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal.

7. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 09.12.2025 in MCOP.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Small Causes Judge, Chennai, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, for proceeding with the execution petition and permitting the petitioners-decree holders to proceed against the immovable property of the 1st judgment debtor, which is sought to be attached and sold. The execution petition shall be disposed of on or before 31.01.2027. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 28.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Chief Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.932 of 2026 28.08.2026