JUDGMENT

R.S Pathak, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of it suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plots in suit and that the plots were not liable to attachment and to sale in execution of an earlier decree.

2. Tota Ram filed suit No. 830 of 1964 against one Kashi Nath. On application made by him, the trial court made an order dated September 11, 1964 directing attachment before judgment. The attachment was duly effected on September 15, 1961. On that date Kashi Nath and one Maharaj Singh had already executed a sale deal in favour of Prabhu, the plaintiff before us, in respect of those very plots for it consideration of Rs. 1, 400/-.

3. Prabhu then filed a shit, out of which the present appeal arises, alleging that consequent upon the aforesaid sale cited he had entered into possession of the plots on September 15, 1964 and that he was entitled to the declaration mentioned above.

4. The suit was contested by Tota Ram alone. It was contended that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was without consideration and had been obtained fraudulently with a view to defeat the defendant's claim in the earlier suit. It was also asserted that the attachment before judgment had been made to the knowledge of the plaintiff and Kashi Nath, and that an injunction order had been served on Kashi Nath in the presence of the plaintiff even before the execution of the sale deed.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a transferee for consideration in good faith and therefore, following Order XXI, Rule 54 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order of attachment became effective only after a copy thereof had been affixed in accordance with that provision, and as that had not been done before the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration claimed by him.

6. The defendant then filed the present second appeal. The second appeal came on for hearing before our brother S. N. Singh, and in the opinion that there was a conflict in this Court between Raja Ram v. Gir Raj Kishore, AIR 1964 Allahabad 369, and Sri Krishna Gupta v. Ram Babu, AIR 1967 Allahabad 136. He referred the case to a larger Bench. And now the appeal is before us.

7. We have heard ]earned counsel for the appellant at some length. It seems to us that in view of the decision of this Court in Sri Krishna Gupta, AIR 1967 Allahabad 136 the matter stands concluded, and we find it difficult to say, in view of what follows, that there is any conflict between that decision and the decision in Raja Ram, AIR 1964 Allahabad 369

Section 64 of the Code provides :

"Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery all 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.

Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, claims enforceable under an attachment include claims for the rateable distribution of assets."

It will be noticed that the section sets out the legal effect and consequences where an attachment has been made. It assumes the making of a valid attachment. How an attachment will be made for the purposes of the Code is not mentioned in the section. For that we must turn to Order 21, Rule 54. That provision declares :

"54 (1) Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor front 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 conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court-house, and als