Attachmeent in drt

The facts of this case are rather unusual and are as follows: Mr. X had stood as a guarantor for his sons business loans which the son was unable to repay. Mr. X had mortgaged his residence for that purpose. The papers of the house were given to the Bank. Mr. X lived in that house with his wife, his son, daughter in law and grand children. The son and daughter in law did not have good relations from a long time. The Bank had filed in DRT and Mr. X was trying to work out a compromise. It was decided with the permission of the Bank that the house would be sold and the money realised would be used to pay off the loan in a OTS. The son informed his wife that the house was being sold. He also asked her for a divorce. She was told to take the children and leave. They had a 20 years old daughter and a 17 yera old son. He told her the house had to be sold else the bank would auction the it. It would be pertinent to mention here that this man had an ongoing relationship with someone from a long time. The house was put on the market and there were negotiations going on regarding the price with buyers. At this point, the daughter in law's father, a very kind and generous man, decided to buy the house for his daughter and grand children, as he did not want them to be more unsettled than they already were. Mr. X and his son were rather upset with this turn of events. However, they approached the Bank and a compromise was reached. The house was bought in the name of the daughter in law with funds arranged entirely, by her father. The payment was made directly to the Bank to protect the interests of the daughter in law. Simultaneously, on mutual grounds they divorced. Mr. X, his wife and son emptied the house and moved out. The son had a child within a couple of months. Mr. X died after a couple of years. One day, more than five years after buying the house, an attachment was affixed outside the house. It was addressed to Mr. X. Apparently, Mr. X had also given some personal guarantees for his own business loans. The daughter in law was unaware of this and is now fighting this attachment in DRT as an objector. While Mr. X was alive, the house was not attached ("being the only residence of Mr. X" as stated in the proceedings). In this ongoing DRT matter, there are 4 CDs, 2 of whom are deceased (including Mr.X). The other two who are alive, have manipulated their assets in a manner so as to show that they do not have any money/properties, despite having the means to pay off the Bank. The Bank is now pressurising the daughter in law. Please give your opinion. Thank you.