9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this appeal) who claimed that she had purchased it for Rs 15,000 under a private sale from at on October 9, 1956. The executing court ordered in a summary enquiry that the obstruction 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 reversed the decree, and decreed Padma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the district where the land is situated. Where the property is situated within the Cantonment limits, the order shall be similarly affixed in the office of the Local Cantonment Board and the Military estate officers concerned, and where the property is situated within the limits of the Municipality, in the office of the Municipality within the limits of which the property is situated. (3) The order of attachment shall be deemed to have been made as against transferees without consideration from the judgment-debtor from the date of the order of attachment, and as against all other persons from the date on which they respectively had knowledge of the order of attachment, or the date on which the order was duly proclaimed under sub-r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 through the evidence of R.F Stoney and L. Joseph and of the Amin 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
