Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Dokala Hari Babu – Petitioner
Versus
Kotra Appa Rao and Another – Respondents
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4382 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 64(2) and Order XXI Rule 58 – Agreement to Sell – Bonafide Purchaser – Attachment before Judgment – To get benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of CPC, objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is bona fide purchaser, who has entered into transaction prior to order of attachment – In present case, same is missing – In entire application, there is no whisper and/or averment and/or pleadings that petitioner is bona fide purchaser and that there was an oral agreement prior to order of attachment and that part sale consideration/sale consideration was paid prior to order of attachment – View taken by High Court upheld – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
It is case of petitioner that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser who purchased the property in question prior to the order of attachment. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon some books-of-accounts to show that the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the sale consideration was paid prior to order of attachment and on the basis of that, it is sought to be submitted that the petitioner was the bona fide purchaser.
Findings of Court:
It cannot be said that the executing Court as well as the High Court have committed any error in rejecting the objection/obstruction submitted by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Mr. R. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the CPC and has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, who purchased the property in question prior to the order of attachment.
2. It is submitted that the Agreement to Sell was an oral agreement and on the basis of that, the petitioner purchased the property on 26.12.2014 and the Sale Deed was registered on 06.01.2015.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon some books-of-accounts to show that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the sale consideration was paid prior to the order of attachment and on the basis of that, it is sought to be submitted that the petitioner was the bona fide purchaser.
4. We have gone through the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC. In the entire application, there is no whisper and/or averment and/or pleadings that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser and that there was an oral agreement prior to the order of attachment and that the part sale consideration/sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid prior to the order of attachment. To get the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the CPC, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. In the present case, the same is missing.
5. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the executing Court as well as the High Court have committed any error in rejecting the objection/obstruction submitted by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
6. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Attachment before Judgment – To get benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of CPC, objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is bona fide purchaser, who has entered into t....
Private transfer after attachment void under Section 64 CPC against decree holder's claims; claimant must prove bona fide purchase via precise encumbrance verification.
A sale of property after attachment is void as against the claim of the decree holder under Section 64 of C.P.C.
A purchaser pendente lite cannot object to attachment if they agreed to fulfill a decree obligation.
Collusive transfer to defeat creditor voidable under execution proceedings despite preceding attachment if lacking bona fides.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
