An unregistered agreement of sale does not grant protection against attachment under Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the provision explicitly mandates that the contract for transfer must be both entered into and registered prior to the attachment to be valid against claims enforceable under the attachment.

The Court made the following Judgment:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli)

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), preferred by the appellant/third-party claimant, challenging the decree and order dated 05.12.2025 passed in E.A.No.47 of 2024 in E.P.No.556 of 2019 in A.C.No.89 of 2009 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the Executing Court'), whereby the Executing Court dismissed the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58(1) of CPC, seeking to raise the attachment dated 03.06.2019, filed by the appellant/claim petitioner.

2. The gamut of facts relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication is as follows:

(i) The claim petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the petition schedule property bearing D.No.82-6-6, comprising a ground and first floor, admeasuring 125 sq. yards situated on the eastern side of a total extent of 250 sq. yards in plot No.64 of APSEB layout, in R.S.No.202/A21 of Rajamahendravaram. Originally, the said property belonged to the 3rd respondent who is the 2nd judgment debtor, and one Chitturi Nagamani, who is none other than his sister. The said Nagamani and 3rd respondent for their legal necessities offered to sell the property to the appellant, as he is their neighbor, being the owner of the adjacent property on the western side of the petition schedule property, and also their relative. The appellant agreed to purchase the same for a total consideration of Rs.23,00,000/-. Accordingly, an agreement of sale dated 04.06.2018 was entered into upon payment of an advance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, with a condition to pay the balance sale consideration within a period of eight months for performance of the said agreement.

(ii) It was further stated that, at the request of the 3rd respondent and Chitturi Nagamani, the execution of the sale deed was postponed on several occasions. In the meantime, the appellant had paid a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the vendors on various dates as part of the sale consideration. As the vendors continued to postpone the execution of sale deed, the appellant issued a notice dated 07.07.2019, expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and also requesting for registration of the sale deed. As there was no response, the appellant instituted a suit in O.S.No.58 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajamahendravaram, wherein, the vendors contested the suit by filing written statement.

(iii) During the pendency of the said suit, parties have settled the dispute before the Lok Adalat and an award dated 15.03.2023 came to be passed by the Legal Services Authority, under which, the appellant agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- to his vendors i.e., 3rd respondent herein and C.Nagamani, within two months from the date of the said award, and to get the sale deed registered in his favour. In the event the vendors failed to execute the registered sale deed, the appellant would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through the process of Court.

(iv) It was further contended that, for the purpose of presenting the document for registration the appellant got being ready with the balance sale consideration, verified the records at the office of the Sub-Registrar and found that the subject property had been inc