Valid attachment of immovable property requires proof of proclamation and affixture, not merely an attachment order.

A valid attachment of immovable property requires compliance with Order XXI Rule 54 CPC: a prohibitory order must be issued and the attachment must also be proclaimed and affixed in the prescribed manner. Proof that an attachment order was made is not enough. Section 114 of the Evidence Act permits only a presumption that official acts were regularly performed; it does not allow a presumption that the disputed act of attachment itself occurred without proof of the foundational facts. Where evidence of affixture on the suit lands was lacking and the available witnesses did not support such affixture, the attachment could not be treated as duly made known, and Section 64 CPC did not assist the claimant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved a valid attachment before judgment of the suit immovable properties in accordance with Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the court could presume due performance of the attachment formalities under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: For an attachment of immovable property, the prohibitory order must be issued and the order must also be proclaimed and affixed in the manner prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mere proof that an attachment order was made is insufficient. The evidence showed, at best, an affixture on a house in the village and a prohibitory order in respect of the schedule properties, but there was no proof of affixture on the suit lands themselves. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption that official acts are regularly performed, but it does not permit a presumption that a disputed act was in fact performed where the foundational fact itself is not proved. The presumption also could not be drawn in favour of the plaintiff when the available evidence from persons acquainted with the proceedings was not supportive of affixture on the lands. The delay in instituting the suit further weakened the plaintiff's case because the relevant records were no longer available. Since the attachment was not shown to have been made known in the manner required by law, Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not assist the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove a valid attachment of the suit properties, and the finding against the plaintiff was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid attachment of immovable property is not established by proof of an attachment order alone, and the presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be used to presume the very fact of attachment where compliance with the mandatory mode of attachment is not proved.

---