Rajamannar, C.J.-This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,300 from the defendant as damages for unlawful attachment of her properties. The material facts which are beyond controversy are: The defendant obtained a decree against one Peruri Suryaprakasam on 9th May, 1934, in C.S. No. 166 of 1934 on the Original Side of this Court. On nth January, 1935 the suit properties among others were transferred by the said Suryaprakasam to one P. Venkatasubba Rao. The defendant in execution of the decree obtained by him attached the suit properties. Venkatasubba Rao filed a petition under Order 21, rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming the properties on the strength of his purchase. The petition was allowed in his favour. As against this order the defendant filed a suit, O.S. No. 171 of 1940, in the Subordinate Judge’s Court of Chingleput. Meanwhile, on the 15th January, 1940, there was an agreement to sell the suit properties by Venkatasubba Rao in favour of one Murugesa Mudaliar. This was one day prior to the order of precept issued by this Court in the execution application filed by the defendant. The actual attachment was made on 19th January, 1940. The sale deed was eventually executed by Venkatasubba Rao in favour of Murugesa Mudaliar on 1st July, 1940. The plaintiff therefore made Murugesa Mudaliar also a defendant in his suit, O.S. No. 171 of 1940. The learned Subordinate Judge held that though the transfer of the properties by the judgmentdebtor Suryaprakasam to Venkatasubba Rao was intended to defraud the creditors, Murugesa was a transferee in good faith for consideration. On this finding the suit was dismissed. The defendant preferred an appeal to this Court A.S. No. 289 of 1944. The appeal was dismissed by this Court which found that the sale in favour of Murugesa Mudaliar was a bona fide transaction not liable to be set aside and therefore the properties were not liable to be attached in execution of the defendant’s decree. But the Court made the following observations:

“While holding that the two villages cannot be directly attached by the plaintiff] in execution of his decree we leave it open to the plaintiff to contend in future proceedings that he ban execute his decree against that portion of the purchase price which was paid (by Murugesa) or to be paid after the attachment”.

The Judgment of this Court in appeal was delivered on 13th November, 1945. Meanwhile the properties had been conveyed by the heirs of Murugesa Mudaliar who had died, to two persons, T. Doraiswami Mudaliar and Pappu Chetty Lakshminarayana, by two sale deeds, dated 27th October, 1945. Within two months thereafter, these two vendees conveyed the properties purchased by them to the plaintiff under two sale deeds, dated 31st December, 1945. On 5th April, 1946, the defendant filed E.P. No. 94 of 1946 for transmission of the decree obtained by him in C.S. No. 166 of 1934 to the Sub-Court of Chingleput through the District Court for execution. It appears that in the application for transmission it was stated that the defendant intended to execute the decree against the purchase price in respect of the suit properties in the hands’ of the purchasers. The execution petition actually filed on 6th November, 1946, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, however, was for attachment of the suit properties. The defendant added as parties to this execution petition the legal representative of the original judgment-debtor, Venkatasubba Rao and Paramasiva Mudali, the legal representative of Murugesa. The relief prayed was that the Court may be pleased to order attachment of the properties and to sell them. On this application an order for attachment was made on 23rd November, 1946. In pursuance of this order attachment was effected on 26th January, 1947, by beat of tom-tom and by affixture of a copy of the order of attachment on the wall of a temple situated in one of the villages, and of another

Click Here to Read the rest of this document