LexHAMDA AMMAL versus AVADIAPPA PATHAR AND 3 OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- A HA MD A. AMMAL v. AVADIAPPA PATHAR AND 3 OTHERS • NOVEMBER 7. 1990 B [T.K. THOMMEN, K.N. SAIKIA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure~Order 38 rules 5 and JO-Attachment before judgment of property after execution of sale deed but before its registration effect on the rights of the vendee. c The appellant purchased the suit property from Govindraju Pathar, Muthulinga Asari and Gurusami Pathar-Respondents-ven· dors by a sale deed executed in her favour on 9.9.1970 and got the sale deed registered on 26.10.1970. Before registration of the sale deed, respondent Avadiappa filed a money suit for the recovery of the amount on 13.9.1970 against the said vendors and obtained attachment before D judgment of the property in question on 17.9.1970. Later the said money suit was decreed in his favour. The appellant claimed rights in the property on the strength of the sale deed executed in her favour on 26.10. 70 by filing a snit and the question that arose for consideration in the said snit was whether she was entitled to the property in question. The suit was decreed in her favour but on appeal, the High Court E reversed the order of the trial court. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff· • appellant. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: A transaction of sale having already taken place even F prior to the institution of a suit cannot be said to have been made with ' the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree. The Legislature has provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act that it shall operate from the time from which it would commence to operate if no registration thereof had· been required or made and riot G from the time of its registration. Thus the vendee gets rights which will b~ related back on registration from the date of the execution of the sale deed and such rights are protected under Order 38 rule 10, C.P.C. read together with Section 47 of the Registration Act. Ram Saran Lal and Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuerand Ors., [1962] 2 H S.C.R. 474; Hira/a/ Agrawal etc. v. Rampadarath Singh and Ors. etc., - 594 ·- - H. AMMAL v. P. PATHAR [KASLIWAL, J.] 595 [1969] 1 SCR 328; .Radhakishan L. Toshniwa/ v. Shridhar, (1961] 1 SCR 248 and Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, [1959] SCR 878 and Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, [1959] SCR 878, distinguished. Vannarakka/ Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Ba/akrish- 11a11 and Anr., [1990] 3 SCC 291; Tilakdhari Singh v. Gour Narain, AIR 1921 Pat. _150; Raja Ram v. Giraj Kishore and Anr., AIR 1964 All. 369; referred to. Faiyazauddin Khan v. Mst. Zahur Bibi, AIR 1938 Pat. 134; Champa! Rao Mahadeo v. Mahadeo Baijirao Kunbi and Ors., AIR 1937 Nagpur 143; Ka/yanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppa11a1•."nd 0 rs., !LR 50 Madras 193, Approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1984. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.12.1982 of the Madras A B c High Court in S.A. No. 1644 of 1978. D K.N. Bhat, S. Thananjayan and K.R. Choudhary for the Appellant. C. Sitaramiah, A.T.M. Sampath and M. Raghuraman for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIW AL, J. This Civil Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24th December, 1982. This case raises a short but an important question of F law. We would narrate only such facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the question of law raised in the case. The appellant Hamda Ammal purchased the suit property from the respondents Govindraju Pathar, Muthulinga Asari and Gurusami Pather (herein- after referred to as the vendors) by a sale deed executed in her favour on 9.9.1970. Hamda Ammal got the sale deed registered on G 26. lO. 1970. Before registration of the sale deed, respondent Avadi- appa filed a money suit for the recovery of Rs.5,200 on 13.9.1970, against the vendors and obtained attachment before judgment of the ':r- property in question on 17.9.1970. Subsequently the aforesaid money suit filed by Avadiappa was also decreed in his favour. The question' which calls for consideration is whether Hamda Ammal is entitled to H A B c D E F G H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. the property sold in her favour by virtue of sale deed dated 9.9. 1970 but registered subsequcnlly on 26.10.1970, or Avadiappa has a better claim to the property on account of an attachment before judgment made on 17.9. 1970 in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.