Sangarapillai V. Indo Lanka Provident Insurance Co., Ltd.,

1948 Present. Howard C.J. and Wijeyewardene S.P.J.
 
SANGARAPILLAI, Appellant, and INDO-LANKA PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
 Respondent.
 
S. C. 387-D. C. Jaffna, 1,901.

    Civil Procedure-Seizure of immovable property-Prohibitory notice-Wrong description of judgment-debtor-Sale by Fiscal-Is it a nullity ?-Civil Procedure Code, s. 237.
 
On a decree obtained against the plaintiff Company which was then known as the Continental Provident Insurance Society, Ltd., certain property belonging to the Company was seized by the Fiscal. The decree was entered against " the Continental Provident Insurance Company, Ltd., by its Managing Director S. K. Subramaniam of Vathiry, Juffna ". In the prohibitory notice issued by the Fiscal the name of the defendant was given as S. K. Subramaniam of Vathiry although all the other particulars were correctly given. The notice of sale gave all the particulars correctly including the name of the judgment-debtor. The Fiscal's conveyance to the defendant also gave the name of the judgment-debtor correctly. In an action by the plaintiff for declaration of title the District Judge held that the defendant did not get title owing to the error in the prohibitory notice regarding the name of the judgment-debtor.
 
Held, that in the circumstances the error was a misdescription which did not amount to an illegality and that the sale to a bona fide purchaser could not be impugned on that ground by the judgment-debtor.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Point-Pedro.
 
H. V. Perera, K.C., with C. Chellappah, for the defendant, appellant- The failure in the prohibitory notice P8 issued under section 237, Civil Procedure Code, to set out the judgment-debtor's name correctly doss not matter. The notices of sale, D2 and D3, issued under sections 255 and 256 of the Civil Procedure Code set out correctly all the necessary particulars, including the name of the judgment-debtor. So too the conditions of sale Dl. It cannot be said that the judgment-debtor was, not aware that the property belonging to it was caught up by P8. Further section 237 does not say that the notice should be served on the judgment-debtor, unlike, e.g., section 229. The object of seizure is to make it known (vide section 238), and it cannot be said that the judgment-debtor in this case did not know.
 
Attachment is a step in execution designed for the protection of the judgment-creditor and not for the benefit of the judgment-debtor 1. Any defect or error in the mode of attachment is only an irregularity which does not render the sale ipso facto void-Nana Kumar Roy v. Golam Chunder Dey 2. Non-compliance with section 290 of the old Indian Code which corresponds to our section 282 is only a material irregularity and not an illegality rendering the sale void a initio-Tasadduk Rasul Khan v. Ahamed Husain 3.
 
1 (1934) A. I. R. Bomb, 241 at 243.

2 I. L. R. (1891) 18 Cal. 422 at 426.

3 I. L. R. (1893) 21 Cal. 66 (P. C.)

The learned trial Judge has based his decision on the case reported in Bastian Pillai v. Anapillai 1. But this case purports to follow a case reported in I. L. R. 5 Allah bad, 86 which has not been followed in I. L. R. 18 Calcutta, 188 at 192 and I. L. R. 21 Calcutta, 639.
 
Sale without attachment is not a nullity 2. The sale cannot be set aside at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless prejudice is caused- Wijeyewardene v. Podisingho 3.
 
The defendant-appellant was a bona fide purchaser and cannot suffer for the failure of the writ officer who was responsible for P8. Further, the sale was confirmed by Court; and therefore it is not a nullity merely by reason of defective attachment or even absence of attachment-Kishory Mohun Roy v. Mohomed Mujaffar Hossein 4. A party who acquiesces in an execution sale cannot thereafter question it-Arunachellam v. Arunachellam 5.
 
N. E. Weerasooria, K C., with H. W. Tambi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document