A subsequent purchaser without knowledge of such attachment cannot be penalized.

1. Aggrieved by the orders in E.A. No. 38 of 1999 in E.P. No. 87 of 1999 in O.S. No. 18 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, which was confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur in C.M.A. No. 34 of 1999, the appellant has filed the above second appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder: The appellant Sri Krishna Chit Funds purchased the suit property in dispute from the 2nd respondent herein for valuable consideration on 297. They were put in possession and enjoyment of the said property even on the date of sale. The appellant is continuing in possession of the suit property, it is stated that the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 18 of 1997 against the 2nd respondent, herein and obtained attachment before judgment of the-said-property belonging to the 2nd respondent. The appellant was not aware of the said attachment before judgment. The appellant as a bona fide purchaser made enquiries and perused encumbrance certificate. The Encumbrance certificate obtained did not disclose the attachment before judgment. When the sale proclamation was sought to be affixed in the suit property, the appellant came to know about the sale before judgment. Therefore, they filed

E.A. No. 38 of 1999 in E.P. No. 87 of 1999 in O.S. No. 18 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi. The trial-court as well as the appellate court on an erroneous view of law and facts dismissed their application as well as appeal, against which they filed the present second appeal before this Court. The appellant had proved that the attachment before judgment did not find a place in the encumbrance certificate and mandatory provisions contemplated under Order 38, Rule 11 (b) and Order 21, Rule 58A of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. The appellant had also discharged the loan and the consideration for Sale-deed had paid. The attachment before judgment was not disclosed at the time of sale and they are a bona fide purchaser.

3. On behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the provisions of Order 38, Rule 11 (b) and, Order 21, Rule 58A of the C.P.C., were fully complied with. The order of attachment was within the knowledge of the appellant herein and they are not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The alleged-purchase of property under Sale-deed dated 212. 97 long after the order of attachment before judgment was passed is itself void under Section 64 of the C.P.C. The said provision is mandatory in nature and provides that after an attachment is made, if any transfer by private sale has been effected, the said transfer would be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.

4. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

5. It is the case of the appellant that they purchased the suit property belonging to the second respondent herein on 212. 1997 by way of a registered sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 4,98,360. Certified copy of the sale-deed has been marked as Ex.P-l. It is also their definite case that on the date of the sale, the second defendant handed over possession to the appellant herein. It is further seen that on the date of the sale, the appellant herein discharged various debts borrowed by the second respondent. All those details including various order of attachment were mentioned in Ex.P-1. In addition, to various debts, the second, respondent owed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to a housing co-operative society at Sattur and on the date of sale the total outstanding to the society is Rs. 2,16,000. The appellant agreed to discharge the said loan to the society. The same has been mentioned in the sale-deed itself. It is further seen that the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 18 of 1997 before the Sub Court. Sivakasi for a recovery of a sum of Rs. 2