M MARATHACHALAM PILLAI Vs. PADMAVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. H. Muhammad Yousuff Sait-hereinafter called "sail" was the owner of a house at Ootacamand. M. Marathachalam Pillai hereinafter called 'pillai'-obtained a money decree' against Sait and attached the house belonging to Sait in execution of the decree on 7/08/1956. The house was then put up for sale and was purchased by Pillai with the leave of the court on 7/02/1958. In obtaining possession of the house Pillai was obstructed by Padmavathi (respondent in this, appeal) who claimed that she had purchased it for Rs. 15,000. 00 under a private sale from sait on 9/10/1956. The executing court ordered in a summary enquiry that the obstruction raised by Padmavathi be removed. Padmavathi then filed a suit in the Civil court for setting aside the summary order. The Trial court dismissed the suit against Pillai holding that the house hadbeen properly attached and the sale being contrary to the attachment levied by Pilial was void against all claims thereunder. In appeal the High court of Madras held that the attachment was not made according to law, since the requirements of Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with. The High, court reversed the decree, and decreed Padmavathi's suit. Pillai has filed this appeal with' certificate granted by the high court.

(2.) When property is attached in execution of a decree, any private transfer of that property contrary to such attachment is by S. 64 declared void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. For the bar of S. 64 to operate, there must however be an effective attachment. Under Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure (as modified by the High court of Madras) reads as follows:

(3.) The rule requires that the attachment shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to the property by beat of drum or other customary mode; a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and where the property is situated within the limits of a Municipality a copy of the order shall be affixed in the office of the Municipality within the limits of which the property is situated. The High court of Madras held that there had been no effective attachment because there had been no proclamation by beat of drum as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 oforder 21, and a copy of the order was not affixed in the office of the municipality.