The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure is contingent on the existence of claims enforceable under the attachment, and once the attachment ends, such claims cease to be enforceable.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These appeals have been heard together. The facts are the same in each case and they both raise the same question of law, namely, whether Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in the circumstances. Happell, J., who heard the second appeals out of which these appeals arise was of the opinion that it did not. Being appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent we are only concerned with the legal question.

2. In 1927 one Chalasani Anjaneyalu filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulinatam against two defendants, named Lakshminarayana and Chalasani Ramayya respectively. The plaintiff failed to establish his case and consequently his suit was dismissed with costs, each defendant being given one set. On the 16th April, 1930, Lakshminarayana transferred his decree for costs to the appellant. Chalasani Ramayya filed E.P. No. 42 of 1932 to enforce payment of the costs decreed to him and in these proceedings attached on the 22nd July, 1932, immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. On the 20th March, 1933, the Court sold by public auction the properties attached, but before the sale was confirmed the judgment-debtor deposited the amount of the decree plus the solatium of five per cent. required by Order 21, Rule 89, and on the 29th July, 1933, the sale was set aside under Order 21, Rule 92.

3. On the 1st March, 1933, the appellant filed E.P. No, 32 of 1933 to enforce payment of the amount due from the judgment-debtor to him as the assignee of Lakshminarayanas decree. He asked for the attachment of the properties which Chalasani Ramayya had attached and for rateable distribution. On the 1st April, 1933, the Subordinate Judge passed an order recognising the appellant as the assignee of Lakshminarayanas decree and his right to rateable distribution, but made no order of attachment on this petition. The judgment-debtor had objected to the appellant being permitted to proceed in execution because he challenged the validity of the assignment of the decree. As the result of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge on the 1st April, 1933, the judgment-debtor appealed to this Court. His appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the Subordinate Judge with instructions to hear the judgment-debtors case on its merits. This the Subordinate Judge did and came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtors opposition was groundless. The result was that on the 7th December, 1936, he passed a similar order to the one which he had passed on the 1st April, 1933.

4. On the 23rd June, 1933, the appellant filed another application asking for the attachment of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. An order of attachment was passed on the 30th June, 1933, but was discharged on the 31st October, 1935.

5. On the 12th May, 1933, that is during the attachment effected by Chalasani Ramayya of the judgment-debtors properties, the judgment-debtor sold a portion of them to one Namayya. This sale provided him with the money to pay into Court the amount due to Chalasani Ramayya under his decree, plus the solatium payable to the auction-purchaser. The judgment-debtor had previously sold another portion of the attached properties to a person named Sundaramma. That sale took place on the 30th July, 1932, eight days after Chalasani Ramayya had obtained the order of attachment. Sundaramma bequeathed the property bought by her to one Sowbhagyamma under a will dated 1st April, 1934. On the 10th March, 1934, Namayya filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58, objecting to the attachment which had been effected by the appellant on the properties of the judgment-debtor on the 30th June, 1933. Namayyas petition was dismissed and accordingly he brought O.S. No. 128 of 1935 in the District Munsiffs Court of Gudivada under Order 21, Rule 61, to establish the right which he claimed. It is out of this suit that L.P.A. No. 15 of 1941 arises. The attachment effected by the appellant on the 30