Executing court cannot impose payment condition when releasing attached property after finding objector's independent possession.

An executing court's power under Order 21, Rules 58 to 60 CPC is confined to deciding whether attached property is liable to attachment. Once it finds that the objector is in possession in his own right, the property must be released from attachment and the court cannot add a condition requiring payment of the unpaid sale consideration. A separate claim for the balance price must be pursued in the proper manner, not through a release order. An agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property, and a prior contract cannot defeat the attaching creditor's rights. The attached property was therefore to be released unconditionally.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision was maintainable against an executing court's order releasing attached property only on condition of payment of the unpaid sale price. (ii) Whether, after finding that the objectors were in possession of the property in their own right, the executing court could impose a condition requiring payment of the balance sale consideration before release from attachment. (iii) Whether an agreement to sell executed before attachment could defeat the attaching decree-holder's rights.

Issue (i): Whether a revision was maintainable against an executing court's order releasing attached property only on condition of payment of the unpaid sale price.

Analysis: The scope of investigation under Order 21, Rules 58 to 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to determining whether the attached property is liable to attachment. If the executing court passes an order beyond that framework, and no appeal lies, revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is not barred merely because a suit may lie under Order 21, Rule 63. The existence of that alternative remedy does not exclude revision where the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, after finding that the objectors were in possession of the property in their own right, the executing court could impose a condition requiring payment of the balance sale consideration before release from attachment.

Analysis: Once the executing court accepted that the objectors were in possession of the property on their own account, Order 21, Rule 60 required release from attachment. The court had no jurisdiction to add a further condition for payment of the unpaid price, because the enquiry did not extend to enforcing the vendor's monetary claim against the attached property. If the decree-holder sought recovery of the unpaid amount, the proper course was to proceed against money in the hands of the objectors, not to burden the release order with a condition outside the scheme of the rules.

Conclusion: The condition was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether an agreement to sell executed before attachment could defeat the attaching decree-holder's rights.

Analysis: An agreement to sell does not itself create an interest in or charge on immovable property. Legal ownership remains with the vendor until conveyance. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure renders private transfers or deliveries made after attachment void as against claims enforceable under the attachment. A prior contract to sell, even if followed by possession, cannot override the rights of the attaching creditor, and equitable considerations cannot control the plain language of the provision.

Conclusion: The agreement to sell could not prevail against the attachment.

Final Conclusion: The attached property had to be released unconditionally, and the executing court's condition requiring payment of Rs. 3,000/- was set aside, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell immovable property creates no interest in the property, and a transfer made after attachment is void against the attaching creditor; therefore, once the objector's possession on his own account is found under Order 21, Rule 60, the property must be released unconditionally and the executing court cannot impose extraneous conditions.

---