MUTHUSAMI CHETTY Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT has been repeatedly decided by this Court, that attachment alone without an order for sale precludes the accrual of the title by survivorship in the event of the death of the judgment-debtor after attachment and before the order for sale B. Krishna Rau v. Laksmana Shanbhogue (1879) I.L.R. 4 M.802 at p. 307 IT is true that an attachment before Judgment has been declared not to have that effect in the event of the judgment debtor dying before decree Rmayya v. Rangappayya (1893) I.L.R.17 M. 144 at p.145 The reason is that the attachment before Judgment is only intended to protect the property from alienation. But when a decree is passed subsequently it is unnecessary to attach the property again and the prior attachment renders the property available for sale in execution. An attachment followed by a decree therefore precludes the accrual of the title by survivorship for the same reasons as an attachment after decree. For these reasons we reverse the orders of the Courts below, direct the Munsif to restore the application to his file and pass fresh orders. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court. The costs in the Court of First Instance will be provided for in the final order.