State revenue claim cannot override civil court execution without statutory priority; civil attachment prevails against later revenue sale.

A State contractual revenue claim could not displace a third-party decree-holder's rights or claim priority over a subsisting civil court decree and execution without express statutory authority; the common law priority of sovereign debts could not override the Bank's execution. Once the property was lawfully attached in execution, it remained under the civil court's control, so the Collector could not independently sell it while that attachment subsisted. The attachment under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act was nevertheless valid because substantial compliance was sufficient and the debtor and public had notice of the demand and threatened sale.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State could enforce a contractual revenue claim against a third-party decree-holder and claim priority over an existing civil court decree and execution, (ii) whether the Collector could validly proceed to sell property already attached in execution by the Bank, and (iii) whether the attachment under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act was validly effected.

Issue (i): whether the State could enforce a contractual revenue claim against a third-party decree-holder and claim priority over an existing civil court decree and execution.

Analysis: The contractual arrangement between the State and the judgment-debtor was valid as between those parties and enabled recovery of the State's dues through the revenue machinery. However, that contract could not bind a stranger to it or displace the rights of a third-party decree-holder in the absence of a statutory provision conferring such priority. The precedence clause in the Bombay City Land Revenue Act applied only to sums recoverable under that Act, and the State's contractual claim did not fall within that statutory priority. The common law doctrine of priority of sovereign debts could not be used to override a civil court decree and execution where no legislative mandate existed.

Conclusion: The State could not claim priority over the Bank's decree and execution proceedings.

Issue (ii): whether the Collector could validly proceed to sell property already attached in execution by the Bank.

Analysis: Once the Bank had lawfully attached the judgment-debtor's property in execution, the property came into the custody of the court. In such circumstances, the revenue authority could not independently sell the property on the strength of its own attachment while the civil court attachment continued, unless the statute expressly authorised such overriding action. No such authority was shown.

Conclusion: The Collector could not lawfully proceed with the sale against the Bank's subsisting attachment.

Issue (iii): whether the attachment under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act was validly effected.

Analysis: The Act did not prescribe a rigid mode of attachment, and substantial compliance was sufficient. The evidence showed that the debtor had notice of the demand and threatened sale, and the public also had notice. The object of attachment was achieved even though the formalities of the Civil Procedure Code were not followed.

Conclusion: The attachment was valid.

Final Conclusion: The Bank was entitled to protect its execution proceedings against interference by the Collector, and the revenue authorities were required to approach the executing court for any claim to priority.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual revenue claim of the State cannot override a third-party decree or execution without express statutory authority, and once property is attached by a civil court it remains under that court's control until lawfully dealt with by the executing court.

---