RATHA HARIJAN Vs. NARASINGHA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against the reversing decree of the learned appellate court dismissing his suit. Defendants 1 to 3 are the natural uncles of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is, besides, the plaintiff's father-in-law. Defendant No. 4 is the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 93 of 1958 arising out of Money Suit No. 139 of 1950 in which defendant No. 4 was the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and another (dead) were the defendants. In course of the proceeding of the suit, defendant No. 4 got certain landed properties of defendant 1 and 2 attached on 23-9-50 on the allegation that these defendants were trying to transfer them away to the plaintiff with a view to deprive him of Ms dues. About four months after the said attachment before judgment, the plaintiff got a registered sale deed from defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit land measuring 4.01 acres for consideration of Rs. 1000/-. In course of the execution proceeding, the plaintiff abortively put forward his claim based on the said sale. So the plaintiff brought the suit under appeal for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) The plaintiff impeached the attachment before judgment as invalid due to certain irregularities. Defendant No. 5, who was the only contesting defendant in the suit and who was the auction purchaser of the attached lands including the suit plot, contested the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the attachment was valid, and that the sale, subsequent to attachment by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, was collusive and without consideration.

(3.) The learned trial court found that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was genuine and for consideration; and that the attachment was invalid and so it passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The learned appellate court held that the attachment was invalid; but it was of the view that the sale was collusive and without consideration, and as such no title passed to the plaintiff. So, it dismissed the plaintiff's suit.