Kommana Rukminamma vs Talapanti Ramayya and Others

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—In this appeal, the Court is called upon to interpret Order 21, Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil procedure.

Sub-rule (1) states that where immovable property is attached the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from

transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. Sub-rule (2) reads as follows:

The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order

shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court-house and also, where property is land

paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the District in which the land is situate.

In this case several properties were attached by one order, but the order was posted on only one of them. The question is whether this

constituted a valid attachment so far as the other properties were concerned.

The Co-operative Urban Bank, Ellore, had obtained an award against the seventh defendant in the suit. He is the father of the appellant. In

execution of that award the bank attached a house and sixteen parcels of jeroyiti land in the town of Ellore. It is manifest that these properties

constituted at least three distinct lots, namely, a house, 305 acres of jeroyiti wet land valued at Rs. 20,000 and 15-14 acres of jeroyiti dry land of

the approximate value of Rs. 4,000. A clerk of the bank gave evidence and said that the lands were in different plots and in different places. The

attachment was effected by a proclamation at the house and the affixing of the order of attachment on the building. The order was not posted up on

any of the lands. The sale took place on the 19th December, 1933, and was confirmed on the 21st January, 1934. The decree-holder was the

purchaser of all the properties and he was given possession on the 4th February, 1934.

On the 25th May, 1932, the sixth defendant had bought from the seventh defendant a portion of the wet lands. After the attachment had been

effected the seventh defendant sold portions of the lands to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants under separate deeds of sale. On the

23rd March, 1934, the bank sold to the plaintiff all the properties which it had bought at the Court auction, and on the 25th February, 1935, she

filed the present suit for a declaration of her title. The defence was that the attachment was invalid except in so far as it affected the house and the

District Munsiff accepted the plea. His decision was concurred in by the Subordinate Judge on appeal. The plaintiff has compromised her claim

with the second and sixth defendants, and the appeal is only concerned with the question whether the attachment was invalid in respect of the lands

bought by the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants. We consider that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge must be upheld.

Order 21, Rule 54(2) speaks of"" the property."" This description is manifestly inappropriate where the decree-holder has attached numerous

properties situate in different places. A distinction must be drawn between attachment and the proclamation of the sale of the property attached.

Rule 67(3) says that where property is divided into lots for the purpose of being sold separately it shall not be necessary to make a separate

proclamation for each lot unless proper notice of the sale cannot, in the opinion of the Court, otherwise be given. This is after attachment. How can

it be said that when an order of attachment is affixed only to one property there has been effective attachment of properties situate elsewhere? As

we have indicated, in our opinion, the use of the words "" the property "" implies separate attachments where the application for attachment

embraces several properties situate in different places.

The learned Advocate-General has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mgulvi Abdul Kashem v.

Benode Lai Dhone 12 C.W.N. 757. That case concerned a proclamation of sale under the CPC of 1882. There several villages were put up for

sale in execution and the question was whether a single proclamation was sufficient. The Court held that it was. At the same time it said that if

separate villages under an order of attachment be so far distant from each other that there was no likelihood of a knowledge of the sale

proclamation being carried from one village to another it would be more judicious to have the sale proclamation Served in each of the villages.

Under Rule 67 of Order 21 of the present Code the question whether there shall be one or more proclamations is left to the discretion of the

Court. The Calcutta decision has no real bearing here and the appeal must be decided on the wording of Rule 54(2). Giving the words used their

ordinary meaning it seems to us that the mere proclamation of the attachment and the affixing of the order on the house was not sufficient to effect a

valid attachment so far as the other properties were concerned.

The appeal will be dismissed with costs.