13. c
ba
• A and B own Joint
property
• C sue A; C gets Decree;
A dies;
• B gets A’s share; C
cannot sold A’s share of
execution
• Madras HC says
otherwise.
cba
• A and C sues B separately
• Both gets attachment decree
• Neither A or C gets Priority over each other
cba
• A and C sue B
• A gets Decree; sold property;
• C gets decree; cannot execute decree against
same property
Editor's Notes
In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,—
(a)issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient
Satisfaction is of intent of defendant
Intent of defendant is either to dispose the property wholly or partially
Or remove property out of local limit of court.
Disposition or removal or property can be wholly or partially in case of partially court will as to furnish security for that portion only
Chance of defendant is to present his as to why such order should not be passed against him.
chance of defendant will exist for time bond manner
T Srinivasan v V Srinivasan SC
the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or part of his property
the disposal is with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree
Delhi High Court in Rajpal cotton house v Fancy textile 1997 case = Point #1 #2
Affidavit = Shoka auto India v st. Antony trading company Kerala HC 2018
Attachment of property could be wholly or partially
Order 21 rule 54
11. If for the execution of decree property is required to be attach. In such situation property need not to be re attach.
Abdul Rahim v Amin The attachment before judgment came to an end on the dismissal of A's suit though no order was made withdrawing the attachment. And reason for 11A. Sub rule 2
Dhan Singh v Baboo Ram sale of a property attached before judgment is invalid AIR 1981 All 1
The debate was settled by courts in Govindrao Mahadik v Devi Sahai AIR 1982 SC 989
Agreement to sell
If agreement is made before judgment sale can be done. Attachment cannot free property from contractual obligation i.e., selling of property.
Ist case Sabrao v Mahadevi; Sankaralinga v Official Receiver
II nd case Bisheshar Das v Ambika
III rd case Maula Devi v Prayag
