DEBIPRASAD PAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for confirmation of his possession in the disputed property and for a permanent injunction upon a declaration of his title thereto. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from one Dud Ali Mollah under a registered kobala dated 22nd Ashar, 1361, B. S. , corresponding to 7th July, 1954 and was in possession since the purchase of the property. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had no title in the land and was wrongfully trying to interfere with his possession. The main defence of the defendant is that the suit property was attached in execution case No. 17 of 1954 on 19-5-1954 and the suit property was purchased by him in a court-sale on 9-5-1955. Since then the defendant is staled to be in lawful possession of the suit property.

( 2 ) IT is in evidence that Dud Ali Mollah to whom the suit land originally belonged entered into an agreement for sale of said property with the plaintiff. A Title Suit being Title Suit No. 155 of 1954 (Ext. 2) was instituted by the plaintiff against the said Dud Ali Mollah for the specific performance of the agreement for sale. In the said suit a compromise decree was made and as a result of the said compromise, the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 7th July, 1954. As already stated the very said property was attached in Execution Case No. 17 of 1954 on 19-5-1954, i. e. , about two months prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the suit property. The defendant purchased the property on 9-5-1955 in a court-sale after the plaintiff's purchase of the suit property on 7-7-1954.

( 3 ) ON these facts the learned Munsiff, Basirhat, dismissed the suit holding inter alia that the purchase of the property by the plaintiff in pursuance of a compromise decree was a private transfer of the property and is hit by Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). On an appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Basirhat, upheld the said view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) ON a second appeal Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no dispute that the agreement for sale between the plaintiff and Dud AH Mollah was entered into prior to the attachment of the suit property in the Execution Case No. 17 of 1954, The purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff on 7-7-1954 was in pursuance of the decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff for the specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff therefore had a right over the suit property before the attachment and such right could not be affected by the attachment under Order 38, Rule 10 of the Code. It was further submitted that in any event a compromise decree is nonetheless a decree of the court and a transfer made pursuant to such a decree cannot be considered to be a private transfer so as to come within the mischief of Section 64 of the Code.

( 5 ) THE question that arises for decision in this appeal depends upon the application of Section 64 read with Order 38, Rule 10 of the Code. Under Section 64 a private transfer of property is void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. The object of the section is to prevent fraud on decree-holder and to secure intact the rights of the attaching creditors against the attached property by prohibiting private alienation pending attachment. Order 38, Rule 10 provides that attachment before judgment shall not affect the rights, existing prior to the attachment, of persons not parties to the suit. If therefore a person has a right over a property before its attachment and he is not impleaded in the suit, that right cannot be affected by the attachment. The dispute in the present case turns upon the question as to whether an attachment before judgment will prevail over the contractual obligation created by a previous agreement of sale. In the case of Madan M. Dey v. Rebati Mohan Poddar, 21 Cal WN 158 = (AIR 1916 Cal 927), Woodroffe, J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document