https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308690 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. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:17:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308690 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308690