The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support the existence of a sale agreement and the payments made, and upheld the validity of the attachment executed before the sale deed.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.A.No.6326 of 1979 in E.P.No.1791 of 1979 in O.S.No.5709 of 1978. The application before the Court below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The second respondent herein being the plaintiff in O.S.No.5709 of 1978 on the file of the city Civil Court, Madras, obtained a decree against the first respondent, on a promissory note. An interim order of attachment of the suit property was obtained on 19.7.1978 and made absolute on 15.9.1978. A decree was also granted on 16.4.1979. E.P.No.1791 of 1979 was filed by the decree-holder/second respondent for the sale of the property. It is at that juncture the appellant came forward with a claim petition in E.A.No.6326 of 1979 under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC.

3. It was contended by the appellant that he had entered into an agreement with the first respondent (Judgment-Debtor) for the purchase of the property in question for which the first respondent had taken as advance of Rs 1116 on 28.3.1978 and entered into an agreement. On 30.6.1978 he received a further amount of Rs 43,884 and in part performance of the sale, put the claimant in possession of the property. The claimant had also paid Rs. 10,000 to Puraswalkkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi on 30.6.1978. To clear prior debts of the vendor, the claimant also retained in his hand a sum of Rs.27,585 for clearing the prior seven mortgages of the vendor due to Nidhi. Therefore, out of a total sale consideration of Rs.1,12,000, the first respondent had practically received the whole consideration and what was reined with the claimant was Rs 10,000 and another Rs 19,000 for discharging the promissory debts and for payment of Income -Tax dues. Therefore, the entire sale consideration stood adjusted on 30.6.1978, but the registration was delayed only for getting clearance from the Income -Tax Department. The claimant was not aware of the proceedings between the plaintiff the defendant and there was no attachment effected on the suit premises. There was no tom-tom and on one had come to the premises for attaching the property. There was no attachment at any time after 30.6.1978. The claimant came to know of it only on the affixture of the proclamation notice on 14.11.1979. At any rate he had entered into possession of the property in part performance of the agreement and hence protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The attachment therefore was no valid and binding upon the claimant who had acquired title long before the attachment and the claimant was a bona fide purchaser.

4. In the counter filed by the second respondent/decree holder it was contended that the claim petition was not maintainable. It was not signed by the claimant or any authorised person. The suit in O.S.No.5709 of 1978 was filed as summary suit under Order 37, Rule 1 CPC. I.A.No.11765 of 1978 was filed praying for attachment of the property. On 19.7.1978 the property was attached through the bailiff of the court and the same was made absolute on 15.8.1978. Therefore, on 16.5.1979 a decree was obtained after the first respondent’s petition to leave to defend was dismissed. Therefore, the reason of attachment in the suit, a charge has been created and the claimant has no locus standi to object to the sale of the property brought through the process of the Court. The alleged agreement of the sale has pleaded by the claimant was denied and the alleged payment of the advance was also denied. The various payments as alleged by the claimant were fictitious payments and were cooked up for the purpose of defeating the rights of the respondents. No possession of the property was also delivered to the claimant prior to the date of the attachment. All the said allegations have been made with a view to resist the sale by Court auction. The contention that the claimant had paid the entire sale consideration and that the same stood adjusted on 30.6