The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim petition filed after the property has been sold in a court auction, as per the provisions of Section 64 and Order XXI Rule 58 of the C.P.C, is not maintainable.

By the consent of the parties, the main revision itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The 3rd party claimant in E.A.No.40/2002 in E.P.No.12/1997 in O.S.No.135/86 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham is the revision petitioner.

3. The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance against her husband, the second respondent herein in O.S.No.135/86. After crossing all the hurdles, it seems, she had obtained a decree for maintenance. In order to have security for the maintenance, the property which is the subject matter of the Execution Petition was attached on 29.1.1997.

4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits, that when the property was brought for auction through Court, the third respondent by name, K. Anandan had purchased the property in the court auction sale on 6.2.2002. When the auction purchaser, after obtaining the sale certificate, attempted to take possession of the property, this petitioner had filed E.A.No.40/2002, claiming that the property sold in court auction belongs to him, in view of the purchase made by him on 2.2.2002. The claim application was opposed by the decree holder, as well as the auction purchaser contending that the judgment debtor viz., the second respondent herein, in collusion with the petitioner, created a bogus sale deed, in order to defeat the right of the decree holder for maintenance and that the claim petition filed after the court sale, is not maintainable.

5. The learned District Munsif after hearing the parties and analysing the provisions under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. came to the conclusion that the petition filed after the property has been sold in the Court action, is not maintainable and in this view, he rejected the claim application, thereby giving cause of auction for the petitioner, to come to this Court, as revision petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court has grossly erred in not entertaining the application, in order to agitate his right as contemplated under law and the rejection of the petition, without further investigation, is liable to be set aside, since the same is against the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C.

7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submit that the claim petition filed by the third party claimant, after the court sale, cannot be entertained and only in this view, rightly also, the lower Court has rejected the application, which is in accordance with law and if at all, the petitioner has any remedy, he has to work it out, as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 58(5) of C.P.C.

8. The claim petition was filed only under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. It is an admitted position, that the property was attached on 29.1.1997 and the same was sold in the Court auction on 6.2.2002, while the attachment was in currency. It is not the case of the petitioner, that the attachment though effected on 29.1.1997, the same has been raised elsewhere. In this view, it could be safely concluded, that after proper and valid attachment, in the regular execution proceedings, the property was sold, which has been purchased by the third respondent, Mr. K. Anandan on 6.2.2002. Only thereafter, admittedly on 22.2.2002, this claim petition was filed. Therefore, we have to see, as per the provisions of the Act, what is the effect of the claim petition.

9. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates:

(1) Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment debtor of any debt, dividend or other moneys contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.

(2). Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the attachment"

Thus it is seen any private