Effective attachment under CPC is essential before a private transfer can be treated as void.

A private transfer of immovable property is void under Section 64 CPC only if there is a valid and effective attachment in the manner required by Order 21 Rule 54, including proper proclamation and affixation. On the facts, the alleged attachment was not satisfactorily proved, as the supporting witnesses were not examined and the executing officer's evidence was unreliable, so Section 64 did not invalidate the transfer. An earlier attachment that had already been removed on satisfaction of the decree could not continue to defeat a later private sale because it no longer supported any enforceable claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment of the immovable property was effective in law so as to attract Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether an earlier attachment, which had already been removed on satisfaction of the decree, could still render the later private sale void.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment of the immovable property was effective in law so as to attract Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The validity of a private transfer under Section 64 depends on there being an effective attachment. Under Order 21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, attachment of immovable property requires proclamation by beat of drum or other customary mode and affixation of the attachment order as prescribed. On the evidence, the alleged proclamation was not satisfactorily proved, the supporting witnesses were not examined, and the testimony of the executing officer was found unreliable.

Conclusion: The attachment was not effected in the manner required by law, and Section 64 did not render the private transfer void.

Issue (ii): Whether an earlier attachment, which had already been removed on satisfaction of the decree, could still render the later private sale void.

Analysis: Section 64 voids a private transfer only as against claims enforceable under the attachment. An attachment that has been removed on satisfaction of the decree no longer supports any enforceable claim, so it cannot invalidate a subsequent private alienation.

Conclusion: The earlier attachment did not affect the validity of the sale in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The private transfer was not shown to be void under Section 64, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A private transfer of attached property is void only when there is a valid and effective attachment and only to the extent of claims enforceable under that attachment.

---