N.PERIYASAMY Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants presented a document of partition for registration on 16/3/2023. The Sub Registrar, Paramathi refused to register the document on the ground that there was an attachment order made by the Sub Court, Namakkal which was entered in the Encumbrance Certificate in the year 2003.

(2.) It is the case of the appellants that the suit itself was compromised subsequently and the suit was dismissed for default as early as on 2/3/2007, despite the said decree having been placed before the Sub Registrar, the Sub Registrar has chosen to reject the document on the ground that the attachment is in force. The Writ Petition was dismissed on the premise that since the order of dismissal of the suit was not communicated and the entry in the encumbrance certificate was not removed, the Registrar was justified in issuing a check slip. We are unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. An attachment as is known to law runs with the land. An attachment over the property does not operate as a bar on sale of the property.

(3.) In fact order 38 Rule 11- A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it very clear that an attachment before judgment made in a suit which is dismissed for default will not revive merely because the suit is restored. Further Sec. 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with an effect of attachment reads as follows: