S. SOUNTHAR
A. Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
Syedshah – Respondent
ORDER :
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent seeking raising of attachment before judgment.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the 2nd respondent. Pending suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.987 of 2014 seeking attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent. In the said application, notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entered into sale agreement to convey the property, in respect of which attachment was sought for, in favour of power agent of the 1st respondent and his mother, Heera Begum. On acquiring knowledge about the said agreement, the petitioner's counsel issued a notice to said Heera Begum on 01.12.2014 informing her about the suit for recovery of money filed by him against the respondent in O.S.No.343 of 2014 and the pendency of the petition filed by him for attachment before judgment against the property in respect of which agreement of sale was entered by her with 2nd respondent. After receipt of said notice, the power agent of the 1st respondent, Heera Begum issued a reply to petition
Kalyaniammal Vs Punjab National Bank by its Manager
Hamda Ammal Vs Avadiappa Pathar and 3 Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 715
A transfer made with knowledge of an attachment before judgment can be contested as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC shall be adjudicated upon as if it is a regular suit, and any adjudication on the rights....
(1) Attachment before judgment cannot extend to properties which have already been alienated prior to institution of suit – Attachment before judgment cannot override a prior completed transfer.
(....
Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted as adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.
Civil courts are enjoined to consider disputes between parties and when substantive rights are created and such rights are being flouted, it is for civil court to consider respective contentions and ....
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
A claim under Order 38 Rule 10 of C.P.C is maintainable after the suit is decreed, and the attachment before judgment continues after the decree, adjudicable under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C.
The court established that non-compliance with procedural requirements for attachment before judgment renders the attachment ineffective, impacting the validity of subsequent sales, including court a....
The court emphasized that attachment before judgment requires credible evidence of intent to obstruct execution, and failure to consider relevant documents constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Attachment must comply with jurisdictional rules; absence qualifies as an irregularity, not an automatic nullity unless substantial injury is proven.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.