Judgment

Shah, J.-G. H. Muhammad Yousuff Sait-hereinafter called "Sait"- was the owner of a house at Ootacamand. M. Marathachalam Pillai- hereinafter called Pillai -obtained a money decree against Sait and attached the house belonging to Sait in execution of the decree on August 7,1956. The house was then put up for sale and was purchased by Pillai with the leave of the Court on February 7, 1958. In obtaining possession of the house Pillai was obstructed by Padmavathi (respondent in this appeal) who claimed that she had purchased it for Rs. 15,000/- under a private sale from Sait on October 9, 1956. The executing court ordered in a summary enquiry that the obstruction raised by Padmavathi be removed. Padmavathi then filed a suit in the Civil Court for setting aside the summary order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit against Pillai holding that the house had been properly attached and the sale being contrary to the attachment levied by Pillai was void against all claims thereunder. ln appeal the High Court of Madras held that the attachment was not made according to law, since the requirements of Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with. The High Court reversed the decree, and decreed Padmavathi s suit. Pillai has filed this appeal with certificate granted by the High Court.

Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides :

"Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery pf the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contraryto such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.

Explanation.- ... .. ...

2 When property is attached in execution of a decree, any private transfer of that property contrary to such attachment is by Section 64 declared void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. For the bar of Section 64 to operate, there must however be an effective attachment. Under Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure (as modified by the High Court of Madras) reads as follows:

"(1) Where the property is immovable 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.

(2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property bv beat of drum or other customary mode. A copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and on conspicuous part of the Court house. Where the property is land paying revenue to the Government a copy of the order shall be similarly affixed in the office of the Collector of the district where the land is situated. Where the property is situated within the Cantonment limits, the order shall be similarly affixed in the office of the Local Cantonment Board and the Military estate officers concerned, and where the property is situated within the limits of the Municipality, in the office of the Municipality within the limits of which the property is situated.

(3) The order of attachment shall be deemed to have been made as against transferees without consideration from the judgment-debtor from the date of the order of attachment, and as against all other persons from the date on which they respectively had knowledge of the order of attachment, or the date on which the order was duly proclaimed under sub-rule (2) whichever is the earlier."

3 The rule requires that the attachment shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to the property by beat of drum or other customary mode- a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and where the property is situated within the limits of a Municipality a copy of the order shall be affixed in the office of the Municipality within the limits of which the property is situated. The High Court of Madras held that there had been no effective attachment because there had been no