Mandatory attachment requirements under CPC must be proved before Section 64 can defeat a private sale

Compliance with Order XXI Rule 54 CPC for attachment of immovable property was treated as mandatory: proclamation by customary mode, affixture on the property, and, within municipal limits, affixture in the municipal office were required before Section 64 CPC could affect a transferee. On the evidence, those steps were not proved, so the attachment was not perfected and the private purchase was not rendered void. The claim for past mesne profits also failed because the evidence of quantum was found insufficient and unreliable, while pendente lite profits were left to separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment of immovable property had been validly made in compliance with Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to attract Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and invalidate the private sale. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits for the period claimed.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment of immovable property had been validly made in compliance with Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to attract Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and invalidate the private sale.

Analysis: For an attachment of immovable property to be complete, the prohibitory order must be proclaimed by beat of drum or other customary mode, a copy must be affixed on the property, and where the property falls within municipal limits, a copy must also be affixed in the municipal office. The order of attachment is only the beginning of the process and does not itself complete the attachment. The statutory requirements were treated as mandatory because Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 affects the rights of transferees and operates only after a perfected attachment has been made. On the evidence, the requisite proclamation and affixture on the property were not proved, and affixture in the municipal office was admittedly absent.

Conclusion: The attachment was not perfected, and Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not render the plaintiff's purchase void.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits for the period claimed.

Analysis: The evidence on the quantum of profits was found insufficient and unreliable. In the absence of acceptable proof of past profits, the claim for mesne profits up to the suit date could not be sustained. For profits pendente lite, the proper course was left to proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The claim for past mesne profits was disallowed, and pendente lite profits were relegated to separate proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's title was upheld and possession restored, but the claim for past mesne profits failed, resulting in a partial success for the plaintiff in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory steps prescribed for proclamation and affixture in attachment of immovable property are mandatory, an attachment is not complete unless every required step is proved, and Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 operates only on a perfected attachment.

---