S JAYALAKSHMI Vs. E PRABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is filed challenging the order of the Court below in raising the order of attachment.

(2.) THE petitioner herein has originally obtained an order of attachment before judgment as against the defendant by order dated 1.10.1992 in I.A. No. 9064 of 1992 in O.S. No. 2940 of 1992. When the said application for attachment is pending, the respondent herein has purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 3.9.1992. In view of the fact that the respondent has purchased the property even before the order of attachment, the respondent has filed I.A. No. 21863 of 1996 to raise the order of attachment. THE Court below by considering the fact that the respondent has purchased the property prior to the order of attachment, has raised the said order of attachment. THE above revision is filed challenging the said order wherein the order of attachment was raised.

(3.) IF it is held that the respondent has purchased the property prior to the order of attachment, Order XXXVIII Rule 10 CPC comes into operation which protects the rights of his strangers. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in its decision in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan And Another (1990 (3) SCC 291) wherein it is clearly held that the order of attachment before the judgment shall not affect the rights existing prior to the attachment and who are not parties to the suit. In the said decision, it is also observed that even a purchaser of an antecedent agreement gets good title despite the attachment.