1. Execution — Attachment of property — Objection under Order XXI Rule 58, CPC — Claim of ownership against judgment-debtor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ., K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
Subramanyam V.R. S/o. Late Sri V.R. Ramakrishna Shastry - Appellant
Vs.
Asha Anantha Prasad W/o. Of Anantha Prasad D.S. - Respondent
Commercial Appeal No. 547, 548 Of 2025
Decided On : 20-07-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri S.V. Giridhar, Advocate For Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Ravisha M.G., advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri S.V. Giridhar, Advocate For Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Ravisha M.G., advocate
A release deed affirming a party's absolute ownership does not establish joint shares for others. Under Section 64 CPC, a property transfer is valid if executed before the attachment warrant is effectively implemented.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1A); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 58, Section 64 - Execution of decree - Attachment of immovable property - Objector claiming ownership - Determination of share of judgment debtor - Evidence of self-acquired property - Interpretation of release deed - Effect of transfer prior to effective attachment (Paras 3, 14, 19).
(B) Order XXI Rule 58, CPC - When property is attached in execution of a decree, the court must determine if the objector has a right to the property - A release deed stating that the releasee is the absolute owner and the releasor has no right, title, or interest does not establish that the releasor or other siblings held a pre-existing joint share in the property (Paras 30-31).
(C) Section 64, CPC - A private transfer of property contrary to attachment is void only if the attachment is effective - If the attachment warrant has not been executed at the time of transfer, such transfer is not hit by the bar under Section 64 and remains valid (Paras 35-36).
Facts of the case:
Appellants filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC against the attachment of an apartment used to satisfy decrees against a judgment debtor. The lower court had allowed the attachment to the extent of a 1/3rd share, relying on a release deed executed by one of the children of the original owner in favor of the father and siblings. The appellants contended that the property was the self-acquired property of the father, which was subsequently transferred to the daughter via a registered gift deed before the attachment warrant was executed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the chain of sale deeds produced by the appellants established that the father had purchased the property using his own funds. The release deed, rather than proving joint ownership, explicitly described the father as the absolute owner. Additionally, the record showed that the attachment warrant was not executed until after the registered gift deed had already transferred the property to the daughter.
Issues: The main issues were whether the judgment debtor held any share in the subject property based on the release deed and whether the gift deed was void under Section 64 of the CPC due to the pending attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a release deed affirming the absolute ownership of the releasee cannot be construed as evidence of joint ownership by the releasor. Regarding the transfer, the court held that for Section 64 of the CPC to operate, the attachment must be effective; since the warrant had not been executed prior to the gift deed, the transfer was valid and the property could not be attached.
Result: Appeals allowed; attachment lifted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants: Property is self-acquired, not jointly held; transfer predated attachment. Decree Holder: Property was jointly purchased; JDR has a share. (Para 13 , 17 )
3. Release deed did not assert any right in JDR; recitals confirmed appellant's absolute ownership. Decree holder adduced no evidence of joint purchase. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. A property attached in execution must belong to the judgment-debtor; a release deed reciting absolute ownership negates any joint interest. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned orders set aside — Attachment of subject property lifted in both execution proceedings. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
6. Does a release deed that recites the absolute ownership of the transferor establish the transferee's independent title?
Yes. Recitals in a release deed affirming the transferor's absolute ownership, supported by evidence of self-acquisition, establish independent title and negate a joint interest. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. Under Section 64, CPC, when does a private transfer of property become void against an attachment?
A private transfer of attached property is void only if the attachment was effectively executed before the transfer. An order to attach, without execution, does not trigger Section 64. (Para 35 , 36 )
8. What evidence is required to prove that a judgment-debtor holds a joint interest in attached property?
The decree-holder must adduce clear documentary or oral evidence of joint purchase or contribution; a bare assertion or a release deed showing the contrary is insufficient. (Para 17 , 18 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeals under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [the CPC].
2. COMAP No.547/2025 assails the order and decree dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] on I.A.No.II in COM.Ex.No.241/2023.
3. The appellants had filed the said application under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC, objecting to the attachment of an immovable property – Apartment No.003, Ground Floor in a building, Sparsha Ananda Apartment, Gerehalli, SBM Colony, Srinivasanagara, Bengaluru [subject property]. The subject property was registered in the name of appellant No.1 under a sale deed dated 30.07.2012. He had gifted the same to his daughter (appellant No.2) under a registered gift deed dated 26.06.2023.
4. The subject property was attached in the execution proceedings for recovery of an amount from respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 is a sole proprietorship concern of respondent No.3 (Sri Ramamurthy) and, therefore, has no identity independent of its proprietor. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are, hence, collectively referred to as the Judgment Debtor/JDR. The learned Commercial Court tried the said application as a suit and concluded that the subject property is a joint property of the appellants and the JDR. Accordingly, the court lifted the attachment of the subject property to the extent of 2/3rd share while maintaining the attachment to the extent of 1/3rd share of the JDR.
5. The appellants in COMAP No.548/2025 are the same as those in COMAP No.547/2025. They assail the order and decree dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court in I.A.No.II of Com.Ex.No.240/2023. They filed the said application objecting to the attachment of the subject property for the execution of a decree against the JDR (also arrayed as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the present appeal). The learned Commercial Court rejected the said application on the ground that it was not maintainable, as the subject property was not attached. The learned Commercial Court reasoned that an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC would not lie if there is no attachment.
6. Although the learned Commercial Court found that the warrant of attachment issued in COM.Ex.No.240/2023 had not been executed, it held that the amount recovered from the sale of the 1/3rd share of the subject property attached in COM.Ex.No.241/2023 would be available to satisfy the decree that was the subject of enforcement in COM.Ex.No.240/2023 as well.
7. The order and decree dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court in COM.Ex.No.240/2023 and COM.Ex. No.241/2023 are impugned in the present appeals and are hereafter collectively referred to as the 'impugned orders'.
8. COM.Ex.No.240/2023 was instituted by Ms. Anushree A. (respondent No.1 in COMAP No.548/2025) for a recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,34,438/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.12.2021 (the date of institution of the suit) till realization and costs of Rs. 46,083/-, as decreed in terms of judgment dated 08.02.2023 in COM.O.S.No.873/2021 (decree drawn on 04.03.2023).
9. Smt. Asha Anantha Prasad (respondent No.1 in COMAP No.547/2025) [the decree holder/DH] had instituted COM.Ex.No.241/2023 for enforcing the judgment dated 08.02.2023 (decree drawn on 04.03.2023) passed by the learned Commercial Court in Com. O.S.No.874/2021, for a sum of Rs. 19,22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.12.2021 till realization, and costs of Rs. 1,06,115/-.
10. We note that the two decree holders are closely related. Ms Anushree A., the petitioner in COM. Ex. No.240/2023, is the daughter of the decree holder and her husband, Sri Anantha Prasad D.S., and is prosecuting the execution proceedings through him as her attorney.
11. The learned counsel for the partie
