LALITHA KUNDER Vs. SYNDICATE BANK SURATHKAL BRANCH DAKSHINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in miscellaneous case No. 171 of 1980 succeeded before the trial court in raising the attachment over the property on the ground that the property has been transferred even prior to the decree being passed in that suit. The lower court accepted the petitioner and raised attachment while the appellate court reversed it holding that the attachment is valid. Hence the petitioner is before me in this second appeal.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that there was a settlement in favour of the petitioner on 1-9-1978. But the decree was passed on 19-10-1978 against the settlors. The attachment was made long after the decree. Therefore, the question is whether the settlement was made with a view to defeat the realisation of the decree the plaintiff obtained against the settlors.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision in c. Abdul Shukoor saheb v Arji Papa Rao (deceased) by l. rs. And others, to the effect that Section 53 (1) of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882, can be applied even in proceedings where the attachment is sought to be attacked and it is not necessary to file a separate suit to set aside the document. But this dictum can be made applicable only when there is sufficient pleadings. In fact, the Supreme Court has considered the written statement at page 1153 as follows: