LODHA, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit under O. XXI, r. 63, Civil P. C. Originally the suit was instituted by Bherudan, who died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellant was substituted in his place. Bherudan obtained decree for Rs. 552/9/- besides costs from the Court of Munsiff, Baran on 27-8-1948 against Jagannath, (defendant No. 1), who too died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his widow Mst. Ramnathi, respondent No. 2 and other heirs. In execution of the said decree Bherudan got attached the house in dispute situated in Baran on 13-7 1951. Thereafter, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor entered into a compromise on 2 8 1951 by which it was agreed that the judgment-debtor would pay the decretal amount by a monthly instalment of Rs. 12/- and on his failure to pay two instalments, the decree-holder would be entitled to levy execution for recovery of the whole amount. It was further agreed that the house already attached would continue to remain under attachment till the whole of the decretal amount was paid. On the same day, the Executing Court recorded the compromise and closed the execution case. A certified copy of the order dated 2 8-1951 recording the terms of the compromise, and directing continuance of attachment till all the instalments are paid is marked Ex C. 4.

2. It appears that the judgment debtor after paying one instalment of Rs. 12/-only on 2 9 1951 did not make any payment thereafter and consequently the decree-holder levied execution for the balance of the decretal amount on 10-7-1952 and again got the house in question attached on 28 8-1952. Thereupon Ramnarayan. father of Jagannath filed an objection to attachment on 17-7-1953 alleging that the house under attachment belonged to him and was in his possession and was consequently not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree against Jagannath. This objection was dismissed on 3 10-1953. But the execution could not be proceeded with, on account of the death of the decree-holder and consequently the execution application was dismissed on 15-7-1954 without any recovery. Thereafter the decree-holder filed another execution application on 21-1-1956 and prayed for sale of the house in question. Meanwhile Ramnarayan and Jagannath sold the house in question to defendant No 2 Modulal by sale deed Ex. A. 1 dated 3-6-1957. Modulal, therefore, filed objection to attachment and sale of the house in question under O. XXI. r. 58, C. P. C. which was allowed on 31-7-1958 and the house was released from attachment Consequently the decree-holder Bherudan filed the present suit in the Court of Munsiff, Baran under O XXI, r. 63, Civil P. C against the judgment debtor Jagannath as well as the purchaser Modulal on 23-5 1959, and prayed that the sale of the house in question in favour of Modulal be declared null and void and it may further be declared that the house was liable to be sold in execution of the plaintiffs decree against Jagannath.

3. The suit was resisted by the purchaser Modulal and the learned Munsiff, Baran after recording the evidence produced by the parties dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 27-1-1962. The plaintiff filed appeal but the same was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Baran by his judgment dated 22-7-1963. Consequently, the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the following three points.

(1) That the lower courts have erred in holding that the order of the Executing Court dated 2-8-1951 continuing the attachment till realisation of the full decretal amount (marked Ex.C. 4) is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

(2) That the order by the Executing Court dated 2-8-1951 directing attachment to continue till payment of the full decretal amount was valid and the attachment, was subsisting on the date the judgment-debtor sold the property in question to Modulal on 3-6-1957 and consequently the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document