The sale in pursuance of a later attachment will prevail even if there was an earlier attachment in force on the date of the sale, and the existence of a prior attachment will not invalidate the sale.

K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.

1. Appeal is directed against the order of Sub Court, Palakkad in E. A. 93/19 6 in E. P. 18/1985 in O. S.73/1978. The decree holder is the appellant. The execution application was filed by 1st respondent under O.21 R.58 C. P. C. alleging that the property was purchased by him in court auction in execution of the decree in O. S.337/1978 and delivery taken. Some liabilities outstanding on the property were also discharged by him. Claiming himself to be the owner of the property he wanted the attachment made by the court in execution of the decree in O. S.73/1978 to be released.

2. Appellant-decree holder contended that the properties' were attached as per order in E. P. 78/1982, but there were no bidders at the time of auction and that petition was dismissed. The present execution petition was thereafter filed and the properties were again attached. It was contended that he was not aware of the decree in O. S.337/1978. He further contended that the properties are attached by him first and that the execution proceedings initiated by 1st respondent ate not binding on him.

3. No witness was examined on either side. Four documents were produced on the side of the claimant. The executing court on a consideration of those documents and after hearing both sides held that title to the properties had validly passed to the claimant and that the properties are not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in O. S.73/1978. In consequence the claim petition was allowed. That order is under challenge in this appeal.

4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the properties were attached by the appellant in execution of the decree obtained by him and the subsequent attachment and sale took place while the earlier attachment was subsiding. There is no material on record to show whether the earlier attachment was subsisting or not. Appellant had filed the execution petition in 1982, but that happened to be dismissed for want of bidders at the time of auction, The subsequent execution petition was filed only in 1985 after the sale in favour of 1st respondent and the issue of the sale certificate. Sri. Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant, would point out that the claim has to be presented before the court under whose decree the property was first attached. Attention is drawn to the provisions contained in S.63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-s.(1) of S.63 provides that where property not in the custody of any Court Is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realize such property and shall determine any claim thereto and objection to the attachment thereof shall be the Court of highest grade, or, where is no difference in grade between such Courts, the Court under whose decree the property was first attached. This sub-section only names the forum for making g claim petition or a request for rateable distribution. In case the property is attached by more courts than one, claim petition has to be preferred only in one of the courts. If such courts are of different grades, the claim petition or any objection to the attachment has to be made before the court of highest grade. When there is no difference in grade between such courts, such request has to be made before the court under whose decree the property was first attached. Provision for considering the claim petition and objection to the attachment and for distribution of the sale proceeds among the decree holders has been made in S.63. The principle underlying this section is the convenience of the parties. The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for a fair distribution of the proceeds of sale. This provision is attracted only if execution proceedings are taken in different courts against the same property. In this case execution is taken against the same property in the same court. S.63(1) of the Cods is therefore not attracted. The claim petition can be fil