9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the attachment of the suit properties was effected in accordance with law. 2. Whether the lower appellate court's finding of no attachment was vitiated by the omission to apply certain presumptions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the attachment of the suit properties was effected in accordance with law. The primary question was whether the properties purchased by the father of defendants 1 and 2 from the third defendant were validly attached before judgment as per the order in O.S. No. 524 of 1927. The plaintiff had obtained a decree and purchased the properties in execution, receiving a sale certificate on 17th March 1933. According to Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for an attachment to be valid, there must be: 1. An order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property. 2. Proclamation of the order by beat of drum or other customary mode, and affixing a copy of the order on a conspicuous part of the property, the Court house, and, if applicable, the Collector's office. The court noted that merely having an order for attachment is insufficient; the attachment must be executed as prescribed. The evidence presented, including Exs. AA, BB, and CC, and the testimonies of P.Ws. 7 and 8, did not conclusively prove that the suit properties were attached as required. The plaintiff's evidence suggested affixture on a house but not on the suit lands themselves, which is insufficient as per the precedent set in Rukminiamma v. Ramayya. 2. Whether the lower appellate court's finding of no attachment was vitiated by the omission to apply certain presumptions. The plaintiff's advocate argued that the lower appellate court should have applied the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which allows the court to presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. However, the court clarified that this presumption applies only when there is evidence that a particular act was performed, not when the existence of the act itself is in question. The court emphasized that a presumption cannot replace the need for actual evidence of affixture on the suit properties. The court referenced the Privy Council's ruling in Mohammad Akbar Khan v. Musharaf Shah, where it was held that in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, it can be presumed that all formalities were complied with if there is evidence aliunde of attachment. However, in this case, there was no such evidence of affixture on the suit lands. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the attachment of the suit properties as required by law. The delay in bringing the suit further weakened the plaintiff's case, as the best evidence was no longer available. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the lower appellate court's finding that the plaintiff did not prove a valid attachment of the suit properties. The second appeal was dismissed with costs to respondents 1 and 2, and leave was refused. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements for attachment to protect the interests of transferees for consideration.
|
