Attachment before judgment remains valid despite procedural irregularities, and a later transfer cannot defeat it under Section 64 CPC.

Irregularities or omissions in the procedural steps for attachment before judgment do not by themselves render the attachment a nullity, because the requirements as to mode of service, spot attachment and proclamation are treated as directory where official acts are presumed regular in the absence of positive proof to the contrary. The attachment was therefore valid. Once the attachment subsisted, any subsequent transfer by the judgment-debtors was ineffective against the attaching decree-holder under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the plaintiff acquired no title under the sale deed. The sale was void against the attachment and the dismissal of the suit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether irregularities or omissions in the procedure for attachment before judgment rendered the attachment invalid; (ii) whether the subsequent sale in favour of the plaintiff was void and no title passed to him.

Issue (i): Whether irregularities or omissions in the procedure for attachment before judgment rendered the attachment invalid.

Analysis: The attachment was made under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Order 38 Rule 7 and Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The record showed service, spot attachment and proclamation by beat of drum, and in the absence of positive proof that required formalities were not followed, the presumption of regularity of official acts applied. Even if some steps were omitted, the provisions governing the manner of attachment were treated as procedural and directory, not as conditions whose breach would nullify the attachment. Irregularity in the mode of attachment did not make it a nullity.

Conclusion: The attachment before judgment was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent sale in favour of the plaintiff was void and no title passed to him.

Analysis: Once the attachment was held valid, the subsequent transfer by the judgment-debtors attracted Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and was ineffective against the attaching decree-holder and auction purchaser. The challenge to consideration did not alter the result, since the validity of the transfer itself depended on the subsisting attachment. The appellate court's adverse finding on consideration was supported by surrounding circumstances and was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The plaintiff acquired no title under the sale deed and the sale was void against the attachment.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was upheld because the attachment remained operative and the plaintiff's purchase could not prevail over it.

Ratio Decidendi: Irregularities in the procedural steps for attachment before judgment do not by themselves render the attachment a nullity; where the attachment is valid, any subsequent transfer by the judgment-debtor is void under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---