Rajani Kanto Pal v. Mohim Chandra Roy And Ors.

1. The present appeal in so far as it relates to the order under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., is not maintainable as no second appeal is allowed under the law so far as that order is concerned. In so far as the appeal before us relates to the order under Section 47, Civil P.C., the appellant's contention in the appeal is that the attachment of the properties was defective. The learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the ruling of this Court in the case of Sasirama Kumari v. Meherban Khan [1910] 13 C.L.J. 243 where it has been laid down that when a sale of immovable property has actually taken place, and its validity is impeached on the ground that the property was not attached, the absence of attachment does not, by itself, vitiate the sale. Following that decision, we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal and it should be dismissed with costs, hearing-fee one gold mohur to be divided amongst the several sets of respondents.