JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order of attachment C.E.P.No.240/2009-2009 dated 29.8.2009 attaching the property of the petitioner as security for execution of the Award passed against the husband of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be the sole owner of the land and house in Survey No.210/1 (Part), Plot No.50, Veeramani Nagar, Kovilampakkam, 121, Nanmangalam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The petitioner was conferred with the ownership of the house through the deed of settlement registered in her favour by her husband vide document NO.3089/2003 dated 15.9.2003. 3. The husband of the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Nanganallur Cooperative Building Society. He was placed under suspension and charge memos were issued against him for dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the society. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not concerned with the affairs and administration of the second respondent or the employment of her husband. The impugned order of attachment is challenged on the ground the petitioner being the absolute owner and third party, she is not bound by the Award passed against her husband therefore, it cannot be executed against the property, belonging to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, being not a member or ex-member of the Cooperative Society is not bound by the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act as she does not derive any right under the Act through her husband. 6. The writ petition is opposed by the second respondent on the plea that a fraudulent transfer of the property by the husband in favour of wife to defeat the award passed in favour of the Society, can be attached, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance to the attachment of the property, which was admittedly acquired from her husband who is judgment debtor. 7. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The respondent is not able to show whether the property was transferred in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings or with an intent to defeat the award to be passed in favour of the society. 8. 7. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The respondent is not able to show whether the property was transferred in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings or with an intent to defeat the award to be passed in favour of the society. 8. It is also not disputed that though the petitioner is the registered owner of the property before ordering attachment, no notice was issued to her nor any reasons have been disclosed to attach her property in the impugned order. 9. Therefore, the impugned order can be said to be arbitrary thus not sustainable in law. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of attachment dated 29.8.2009 is set aside. It shall however be open to the respondent to take steps against the property after issuing notice to the petitioner and making out a case of fraudulent transfer, if so advised, in accordance with law. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.