Case: M. Marathachalam Pillai Vs. Padmavathi Ammal and Others

1. G. H. Muhammad Yousuffr called "Sait"was the owner of a house at Ootacamand. M. Marathachalam Pillaihereinafter called Pillaiobtained a money decree against Sait and attached the house belonging to Sait in execution of the decree on August 7, 1956. The house was then put up for sale and was purchased by Pillai with the leave of the Court on February 7, 1958. In obtaining possession of the house Pillai was obstructed by Padmavathi (respondent in this appeal) who claimed that she had purchased it for Rs. 15, 000/under a private sale from Sait on October 9, 1956. The executing court ordered in a summary enquiry that the construction raised by Padmavathi be removed. Padmavathi then filed a suit in the Civil Court for setting aside the summary order. The trial Court dismissed the suit against Pillai holding that the house had been properly attached and the sale being contrary to the attachment levied by Pillai was void against all claims thereunder. In appeal the High Court of Madras held that the attachment was not made according to law, since the requirements of Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with. The High Court reserved the decree, and decreed Padmavathis suit. Pillai has filed this appeal with certificate granted by the High Court.

Reasoning: 5. The High Court was impressed by the testimony of R.F. Stoney who is a retired Engineer and his driver L. Joseph. It is true that there is on the record the report of the Amin which purports to bear the signatures of as many as 12 persons in acknowledgment of attachment being effected by the proclamation by beat of drum. But none of those witnesses has been examined. We have been taken and Vishwanathan, son of Pillai. On a consideration of the evidence, we do not see any reason to disagree with the High Court that no attachment was levied as required by law. Relying upon Section 64, Code of Civil procedure the private transfer of property in favour of Padmavathi cannot be deemed to be void as against the claims enforcement under the attachment of the property by Pillai.6. But Mr. Chagla appearing on behalf of Pillai raised an alternative contention. He said that at the time of sale there was another outstanding attachment and the sale in favour of padmavathi being contrary to such attachment was, in any event, void.It appears that on January 17, 1956, Pillai had in execution of a decree obtained in Suit No. 55 of 1953, attached the property, but that attachment was removed on March 23, 1957, on satisfaction of the decree. By Section 64, Code of Civil Procedure, the attachment is only void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment, and it is not void generally. Since the attachment effected on January 17, 1956 was removed, any private alienation contrary to such attachment cannot be regarded as void for there are no claims enforceable under the attachment, dated January 17, 1956.