KOMMANA RUKMINAMMA Vs. TALAPANTI RAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the Court is called upon to interpret Order 21, Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil procedure. Sub-rule (1) states that where immovable property is attached the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. Sub-rule (2) reads as follows: The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court- house and also, where property is land paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the District in which the land is situate.

(2.) In this case several properties were attached by one order, but the order was posted on only one of them. The question is whether this constituted a valid attachment so far as the other properties were concerned.

(3.) The Co-operative Urban Bank, Ellore, had obtained an award against the seventh defendant in the suit. He is the father of the appellant. In execution of that award the bank attached a house and sixteen parcels of jeroyiti land in the town of Ellore. It is manifest that these properties constituted at least three distinct lots, namely, a house, 305 acres of jeroyiti wet land valued at Rs. 20,000 and 15-14 acres of jeroyiti dry land of the approximate value of Rs. 4,000. A clerk of the bank gave evidence and said that the lands were in different plots and in different places. The attachment was effected by a proclamation at the house and the affixing of the order of attachment on the building. The order was not posted up on any of the lands. The sale took place on the 19 December, 1933, and was confirmed on the 21st January, 1934. The decree-holder was the purchaser of all the properties and he was given possession on the 4 February, 1934.