RAMNATH Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title.

(2.) RAMNATH appellant had a money decree against Kalu, dated 3rd June, 1926. In execution of the decree, certain agricultural land of the judgment-debtor was attached on 11th December, 1950. The judgment-debtor, however, sold some of his land to Ramlal by a registered document dated 11th January, 1951. RAMNATH instituted a suit for declaration that the sale was invalid and the property was liable to sale in execution of the decree. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, but on appeal the learned Civil Judge Jhalawar, held that although there was the order of attachment made by the executing court, yet the attachment was not made according to the provisions of Rule 54. Order XXI, of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as a copy of the order of attachment was not affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and on a conspicuous part of the court house as also in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land was situated. The latter procedure was held to be necessary as the property attached was agricultural land paying revenue to the Government. On this finding it was held that the attachment was invalid, and, therefore, the transfer made by the judgment debtor in favour of Ramlal was not invalid. The lower court placed reliance on Bai Hakimbu vs. Dayabhai Rugnath (1), where it was observed that - "unless all the processes of attachment which are required by law to effect a valid attachment have been served, there is no such attachment of the property as would invalidate its transfer under sec. 64 C. P. C. " Lokur J. , who delivered the judgment in the Bombay case, made reference to Hira Lal vs. Jagatpati Sahai (2) where it was held that in the case of land paying revenue to Government, an attachment was not effective to invalidate a subsequent transfer as a copy of the order of attachment had not been affixed in the office of the Collector of the District.