Statutory revenue-recovery attachment did not trigger Order 21 Rule 63; declaratory suit by true owner remained within general limitation.

Attachment made by the Collector under a statutory revenue-recovery process for income-tax arrears was not treated as attachment in execution of a civil court decree. A third-party objection to such attachment was therefore outside Order 21, Rules 58 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the Collector's refusal to entertain the objection did not bar an ordinary civil suit for declaration of title. The suit was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and was not time-barred. The appellate remand order was set aside and the declaratory decree in favour of the plaintiffs was restored with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' suit for declaration challenging attachment of immovable property was governed by Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code or by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether it was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The attachment of the houses was made by the Collector while recovering income-tax arrears as arrears of land revenue under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act and section 279(f) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The provision in the Rules requiring attachment to be effected in the manner prescribed by Order 21, Rule 54, did not convert the statutory recovery process into an attachment in execution of a decree under the Civil Procedure Code. An objection by a third party to such attachment was therefore not an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, and the Collector's refusal to entertain the application on that ground did not amount to an adjudication attracting Order 21, Rule 63. The plaintiffs retained the right to institute an ordinary civil suit for declaration of title, and such suit was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Conclusion: The suit was not governed by Order 21, Rule 63 and was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's remand order was set aside and the plaintiffs' declaratory decree was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where attachment of property is made under a statutory revenue-recovery scheme and not in execution of a civil court decree, a third-party challenge is not controlled by Order 21, Rules 58 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, and a declaratory suit by the true owner is governed by the general law of limitation.

---