ACT: Civil Procedure Code. 1908: Section 64 and Order 21 Rule 57Attachment order--Execution petition or suit in which attachment ordered dismissed--Restoration of such proceed- ings--Whether attachment revived--Alienation of attached property--Whether affected. -An order of restoration of a suit dismissed for default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application. In the present case both transactions, sale by the judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to the respondents, were effected during the subsistence of the attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed for default. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and the order of restoration of the said case would not affect any alienations made before the restoration, although such alienations might have been made during the subsistence of the attachment. -2015 S.C.(1987) msklawreports 


    The  appellant  filed a petition for  execution  of  the
money  decree  obtained  by her in High  Court against  the
judgment-debtor  and attachment was levied in  execution  on
open land and a portion of the premises in question  belong-
ing  to  the judgment-debtor.  Subsequently,  the  judgment-
debtor sold a portion of the attached property. The purchas-
er  in turn, sold a portion thereof to the respondents.  The
aforesaid  execution petition was dismissed for default  but
later on an application by the appellant, the said Execution
Case was restored, and the said property was again attached,
and a proclamation for sale of the said property was  issued
under  Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The
respondents' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C.  for
releasing  the property purchased by the  respondents from
attachment was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal.
    In appeal to this Court, it was urged on behalf of  the
appellant  that in view of the provisions of Section  64  of
the Code of Civil procedure, the sale of the property by the
judgment debtor to the purchaser and the sale thereafter  by
him to the respondents, which were both effected during  the
subsistence  of  the attachment, were void  as against  the
appellant decree-holder, and although the attachment  ceased
on  the  dismissal of the Title Execution Case,  on  May  9,
1972, it was revived by restoration of the case.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
    HELD:  An order of restoration of a suit  dismissed  for
default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for
the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior
to  the  dismissal of the suit or execution  application.  

    In the  present  case both transactions,  sale  by  the
judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to  the
respondents,  were  effected during the subsistence  of  the
attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed
for default. 
    The  Division  Bench of the High Court was in  error  in
taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said
Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and  the
order  of restoration of the said case would not affect  any
alienations  made  before  the restoration,  although such
alienations  might have been made during the subsistence  of
the attachment. - 2015 SC ( 1987) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more