Saradhammal vs Sankaralingam - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1587

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: Private alienation of immovable property under attachment before judgment is void under Section 64 CPC, particularly when the parties to the transaction had knowledge of the attachment, as evidenced by an express recital in the sale deed itself; no further proof of the attachment order or its proclamation under Order 21 Rule 54(2) CPC is required in such cases, and Section 52 TPA reinforces the prohibition on transfers pendente lite that affect rights of parties to the suit.[21001375250012][21001375250014][21001375250015][21001375250017] (!) (!) Court auction sales pursuant to execution of a decree, where the property remained under continuous attachment, confer valid title on the auction purchaser, with judicial acts like attachment before judgment and auction presumed regular under Section 114(e) Evidence Act absent rebuttal evidence; void private transfers cannot divest this title, which in the eyes of law remains with the judgment debtor.[21001375250016][21001375250017] (!) Admission of additional evidence such as a suit register extract under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC at the appellate stage is permissible when cogent reasons are provided, especially for court records of which judicial notice may be taken even without formal marking.[21001375250011] (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1587

G.JAYACHANDRAN
Saradhammal – Appellant
Versus
Sankaralingam – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Raghavachari.
For the Respondents: Suganthan, N. Manokaran.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

Private alienation of immovable property under attachment before judgment is void under Section 64 CPC, particularly when the parties to the transaction had knowledge of the attachment, as evidenced by an express recital in the sale deed itself; no further proof of the attachment order or its proclamation under Order 21 Rule 54(2) CPC is required in such cases, and Section 52 TPA reinforces the prohibition on transfers pendente lite that affect rights of parties to the suit.[21001375250012][21001375250014][21001375250015][21001375250017] (!) (!)

Court auction sales pursuant to execution of a decree, where the property remained under continuous attachment, confer valid title on the auction purchaser, with judicial acts like attachment before judgment and auction presumed regular under Section 114(e) Evidence Act absent rebuttal evidence; void private transfers cannot divest this title, which in the eyes of law remains with the judgment debtor.[21001375250016][21001375250017] (!)

Admission of additional evidence such as a suit register extract under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC at the appellate stage is permissible when cogent reasons are provided, especially for court records of which judicial notice may be taken even without formal marking.[21001375250011] (!)

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Sub Judge, Vellore in A.S. No. 84 of 1994 dated 26.02.1997 in reversing the well considered judgment and decree in O.S. No. 191 of 1982 and dated 31.03.1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham.

1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration and injunction in respect of the property purported to have been purchased by one Arumugam bonafidely and for due consideration from Subramani and Krishnan under the sale deed dated 30.10.1973. The vendors of Arumugam got the property from one Syed Usuf Sahib vide sale deed dated 15.05.1968. Arumugam took the possession of the property and made improvement over it. He died a year before the suit. After his demise, the property devolved upon the appellants being his legal heirs. Alleging that the respondent herein attempted to trespass into the suit property on 12.11.1981 claiming title, the suit filed for the relief of declaration of title and injunction.

2. The respondent herein contested the suit stating that one Syed Yusuf Sahib, who was the original o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1587

G.JAYACHANDRANSaradhammal – AppellantVersusSankaralingam – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

G.JAYACHANDRAN
Saradhammal – Appellant
Versus
Sankaralingam – Respondent