A.RAHIM
Sinnappan Alias Hetharmamana – Appellant
Versus
Arunachalam Pillai – Respondent
Abdur Rahim, C.J.
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is "whether an attachment operates as a valid prohibition against alienation of the attached property from the date on which it is ordered or from that on which the necessary proclamation is made and copy of the order affixed." This depends upon the proper construction of Section 64 and Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 64 lays down that " where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Rule 54 lays down how an attachment is made : It is in these words:
(1) Where the property is immoveable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge.
(2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.