1. The appellant herein entered into a registered sale agreement dated 01.07.2004, which culminated into a sale deed dated 12.04.2007 under which he purchased the House property No.1092, Khatha No.1066 within the local limits of City Municipality, Bhadravathi from his vendor Sri B.M.Krishna. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.133/2004 on 01.07.2004 against the said Sri B.M.Krishna for recovery of money. In the said suit the respondent herein also filed an I.A. under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC seeking for attachment of the very same property before judgment. The Court before which the suit was pending, granted the conditional order of attachment on 02.07.2004. The suit was ultimately decreed on 01.02.2008.

2. The respondent herein accordingly levied the execution proceedings in Ex.No.42/2008 against Sri B.M.Krishna, the judgment debtor. Since the aforestated property was already attached, the Executing Court ordered the spot sale on 24.01.2009 and the Court sale on 21.02.2009. It is at that stage the appellant herein who was the owner of the property, claiming knowledge appeared before the Executing Court as objector by filing the application under Order XXI Rules 58 and 97 read with Section 151 CPC. The respondent herein opposed the same. The Executing Court after considering the same, rejected the application by the order dated 31.07.2010. The appellant claiming to be aggrieved was before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.195/2010. On consideration, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by the order dated 18.01.2011. The appellant is therefore before this Court in this second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC.

3. This Court while admitting the appeal has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether attachment of land in question by Court order which is subsequent to the sale agreement would stall the right of purchaser (as per the sale agreement) and what is the effect of subsequent attachment?”

4. Ultimately the consideration would be to the effect as to whether the Lower Appellate Court despite noticing that only Section 64 of CPC was relevant in the instant case, was justified in not properly construing the provision and further was it justified in applying Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (‘TP Act’ for short) in the present execution proceedings, though no suit as contemplated in the said provision was filed by the creditor. Even if Section 53 of TP Act is applied, whether on facts the transfer is valid or not.

5. In the above backdrop, I have heard Sri B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prasanna.B.R., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the appeal papers including the records received from the Court below.

6. At the outset, to put in perspective the nature of consideration, it is to be kept in view that the appellant is not a party to the suit and the order of attachment is not passed against him, but it is against his vendor in respect of the property which the appellant has purchased. Apart from the fact that the appellant as objector is seeking to contend that he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, the fact that sale agreement had been entered into, at a point prior to the date of the order of attachment and in that view, what is the legal effect of the same, is also the issue that calls for determination. Therefore, the fact that sale deed is executed on a day subsequent to the date of attachment itself cannot be the only consideration. Whether the order of attachment was within the knowledge of the appellant herein or not is also one of the aspects to be considered.

7. Primarily, what requires consideration is as to whether the transaction under which the appellant has purchased the property falls within the mischief of Section 64 of CPC since what is provided therein is that the transfers which are contrary to the said provision would be void. The provision as contained in Section 64 of CPC reads as hereunder:

“64. Pr