STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. ALLAM SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ appeal the only question for consideration is whether the sale in execution of a money decree is a transfer within the meaning of the Agency Tracts INterest and Land Transfer Act (I of 1917). Such a sale in execution of the money decree was held in 1943 and hence it is admitted that it is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1917 and not the Regulation of 1959 as clause 10 of the Regulation of 1959 expressly saves transfers made or sales effected in execution of a decree after the commencement of the 1917 Act and before the commencement of this Regulation: provided that such transfer or sale was valid under the provisions of the said Act. Hence the only question is whether the execution sale was valid under the provisions of Act I of 1917. Section 4 prohibits only a "transfer" of immovable property and section 2(f) defines "transfer" as a mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift exchange or any other dealing with property not being a disposition and includes a charge or any contract relating to immoveable property. This definition cannot obviously take in execution sales. The learned Judge was right in holding that the expression "other dealing with property" should be considered ejusdem generis with the words preceding and will not include a sale in execution. The learned Government Pleader relied also on section 6 which provides that in execution of a money-decree no immoveable property shall be liable to be attached and sold except as and if prescribed. Far from assisting him, this section clearly indicates that attachment and sale in execution is- permitted. If an execution sale is included in the expression "transfer" then section 6 would be meaningless. The only requirement of section 6 is that it should be attached and sold as prescribed. "Prescribed" is defined as "prescribed by the Rules under the Act". It is not shown to us what rules were contravened when the property was attached and brought to sale in execution. IN the absence of any evidence it has to be presumed that when the property is brought to sale in execution of a decree all the rules were complied with. We therefore see no reasons to interfere with the judgment of our learned brother Gangadhara Rao, J.

(2.) THE writ appeal is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.