LAXMINARAYAN Vs. JAGANNATHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the subsistence of an attachment of a property in dispute, Jiwanlal sold the attached property to one Sobatsingh, who had promised to pay the decretal amount. When the amount was, however, not paid, the decree was put in execution against Sobatsingh. Sobatsingh applied to the Court to give him an opportunity to pay the decretal amount by instalment. This was assented to by the decree -holder and the Court, in consequence, fixed instalments till 1952. On the instalments not being paid, the decree -holder again put the decree in execution. In the meanwhile, the property in dispute, which was zamindari property was taken over by the Government under the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act. The decree -holder prayed to the Court that the decree may be satisfied not only out of the compensation of the attached property but that other property of Sobatsingh was also liable for payment. Both the Courts below have held that the decree -holder is entitled to compensation from the attached property only and that the personal property of Sobatsingh was not liable. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

(2.) ACCORDING to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, private alienation of property after attachment is void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Thus it is obvious that the person at whose instance, the attachment is made can follow the attached property in the hands of the transferee but Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit the claimant to lay his hand upon any property other than the one which was attached. No authority has been cited in support of the extra -ordinary prayer which the decree -holder has made for satisfaction of his decree from the personal property of the transferee which was not attached at all.