Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.49 seconds)C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962
Taken the conduct of the plaintiff wholesomely, it hardly shows that the plaintiff
had conducted himself in a manner consistent with the way a prudent man of
intelligence would generally conduct his affairs. And if this is juxtaposed with the
money suit in O.S.272/99 instituted by the first defendant against the second
defendant, it would emerge that Ext.A1 sale was executed only to defraud the
creditor, that the first defendant is. Therefore, this sale will be hit by Section 53
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reliance was placed on the authorities in
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
C.Abdul Shukoor Saheb Vs. Arji Papa Rao (deceased) [1963 AIR (SC)
1150] and Arya Engineering Vs. Corporation Bank [1997 (II) CTC 83].
6.1 Turning to the question whether Ext.A1 sale deed is made in violation of the
order of attachment before judgment in I.A.No.684/99 in O.S.No.272/99
concerned, it is not just the date on which it is effected matters. While the
plaintiff says it was effected on 15.08.1999, i.e., couple of days after Ext.A1 sale
deed (13.08.1999), according to the first defendant, it was effected on
12.8.1999, a day prior to Ext.A1. Under Order 38 Rule 11(B), the order of
attachment passed under Order 38 Rule 5, "shall be communicated to the
Registered Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any
part of the immovable property comprised in such order, is situate“.
Interpreting this provision, this Court in Tmt.
Section 99 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Vellapandi (Died) vs K.S.Maheshwari ... 1St on 11 April, 2017
R. Umayal Vs R.S.Pillai [2000
(2) CTC 524], Humba Hema Goods Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (CBE) LTD [2012(1) CTC 407, both of which are relied on in
Vellapandi (died) & Others Vs K.S. Maheswari & another [CDJ 2017 MHC
2886] has held that the procedural compliance under Order 38 Rule 11B is
mandatory for effecting attachment, and that a default in complying with Order
38 Rule 11B requirement would save all alienations made by the defendant. This
view apply on all fours apply to the facts of this case as there is nothing on
record to indicate that the Order of attachment was communicated to the Sub
Registry even if it were to be presumed that the Court has passed the said order
on 12-08-1999, a day prior to the plaintiff had obtained Ext.A1, sale deed on
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
13.08.1999. Therefore, as to the first leg of respondents/defendants' resistance,
the appellant succeeds.
1