The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the party to establish their title to the property in dispute under Order 21, Rule 63, and the relevance of title to possession.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that the property which is the subject-matter of the suit is her own property not liable to be attached in execution of a decree in S.C.S. No. 705 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cocanada, obtained by the third defendant against her husband, the first defendant. It transpires that Subsequent to the passing of the decree in the said suit the first defendant was adjudicated insolvent on the 15th March, 1932 and all his property vested in the second defendant, the Official Receiver. The suit property was attached on the 13th April, 1932. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to release the property from attachment on the ground that the property is her own property as she purported to have purchased the same under a sale deed dated 10th November, 1930. The claim was resisted by the third defendant decree-holder on the ground that the transaction was benami for the benefit of the first defendant and not bona fide. The claim was disallowed on the ground that the transaction was not bona fide. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the suit property belongs to her and not to the first defendant, and therefore the property was not liable to be attached as the property of the first defendant. There was also another ground alleged for the release of the attachment, namely, that the attachment having been made subsequent to the first defendants adjudication in insolvency without the leave of the Insolvency Court the attachment is invalid. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit upheld the latter objection and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff without going into the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property or not. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the said decision on the ground that even assuming that the attachment is invalid on the ground alleged still the plaintiff had to establish that the property belonged to her and that the question of title ought to have been determined by the District Munsif and therefore he remanded the suit for decision on the merits of the plaintiffs claim. It is against the order of remand that this appeal has been preferred. It is contended by Mr. Y. Suryanarayana on behalf of the appellant that it is not incumbent on the plaintiff to establish a title to the property but it is enough if she makes out that the attachment was invalid and therefore the property was not liable to be attached. He lays considerable emphasis on the language of Order 21, Rule 58 that the claim or objection is preferred to the Court on the ground that the property is not liable to be attached and all that he has to show in the claim proceedings is that the property is not liable to attachment and if he satisfies the Court that by virtue of the insolvency proceedings the property is not liable to be attached, the Court is bound to release the property from attachment irrespective of the questions of the claimants title and Order 21, Rule 63 being a continuation of the claim proceedings, it is enough if he is able to substantiate the invalidity of the attachment. In my view this contention is untenable. An examination of the relevant provisions of Order 21, Rules 58 to 63 clearly indicates that the scope of a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 is to declare the title to the property which is sought to be attached in execution proceedings. The language of Order 21, Rule 63 is clear and unambiguous. The party against whom the order is made under the previous rules is required to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute. The words "establish the right" mean that the right claimed in the suit must be declared. If the plaintiff is an unsuccessful claimant he must establish that the property belongs to him or that he h