MALLAPPA KARABASAPPA ANNIGERI Vs. IRAPPA SHIDLINGAPPA DANAPPANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question arising in this appeal is whether a decree-holder applying for rateable distribution can assert his claim against another decree-holder who had attached the property in his darkhast and had thereafter purchased it privately from the judgment-debtor in satisfaction of his decree after the application for rateable distribution.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 obtained a money decree against one Huchappa and applied to execute it by attachment and sale of the suit property. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained three money decrees against Huchappa on June 18, 1935, and applied in execution for rateable distribution in the sale proceeds to be realised in the previous decree-holder's application for sale. The property was not, however, sold through Court but the judgment-debtor privately sold it on October 22, 1935, to the previous decree-holder, defendant No.1, who thereafter certified to the Court satisfaction of his darkhast in full. On October 24, 1935, the' plaintiff attached the property in his darkhasts and proceeded to have it sold through Court. DEFENDANT No.1 intervened and objected that the property was not liable to be sold as he had purchased it from the judgment-debtor privately in satisfaction of his darkhast. The execution Court allowed the objection and hence the present suit by the plaintiff-appellant to set aside the order and for a declaration that the property was liable to be sold in his darkhasts.

(3.) THE appellant's contention is that the explanation to Section 64 was added in the new Code to include all claims for rateable distribution of assets in the general class of claims which could be enforced when the property which the assets would represent had been attached. In other words, whenever a private transfer is made of property attached at the instance of any decree-holder even though it is made in favour of that creditor, it shall be void against the possible claims by a non-attaching creditor for rateable distribution of assets which might have been realised if the property had been sold in execution of the decree of the attaching creditor. THE alleged object of this provision is that an attachment by one creditor enures for the benefit of all creditors so that the attaching creditor should not by collusion with the debtor defeat the claims of the other creditors by a preferential private sale in favour of himself.