Kosuri Sueaparaju v. Mandapaka Narasimham

The properties in dispute were attached before judgment. After that order the plaintiffs purchased the properties from the judgment-debtors at a private sale. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiffs acquired no title to the properties against the attaching creditor. We think they are right. We are satisfied that the attachment was subsisting on the date of the sale to the plaintiffs. Exhibits XII and IV make it clear that there was a conditional attachment which was subsequently made absolute. Mr. Ramadoss asks us to say that as there was an application in 1910 to attach the properties again, the presumption is that the first attachment was abandoned. In 1910, the parties were under the impression that as the records relating to the original attachment were destroyed, an application for fresh attachment was necessary. This does not show that the original attachment was; abandoned. The decision in Hafiz Suleman v. Sheikh Abdullah, and Kishen Lal v. Charet Singh only lay down that if a subsequent valid attachment was made, the title of the purchaser dated from the date of that attachment; they do not warrant the proposition that in all cases where parties ex majore cautela apply for a fresh attachment, the original attachment must be presumed to have been abandoned.

Puddomonee Dossee v. Roy Muthooranath Chowdhry is no authority for the proposition contended for.

Then it is argued that as there was no execution application subsisting, the attachment cannot be said to have been in force at the time of the sale. The law lays down that in cases where attachment is applied for prior to decree no fresh attachment by means of an execution application is necessary and the language of section 64 of the Code makes it clear that all that is contemplated under that section is the existence of a pending attachment. The case in Ram Newaz v. Ram Charan has no application, as in that case there was no attachment before judgment. We think the courts below are right and dismiss the Second Appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.