Skip to content


Zaib-un-nissa Vs. Jairam Gir - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All616
AppellantZaib-un-nissa
RespondentJairam Gir
Excerpt:
attachment of property in execution of decree - private alienation after such attachment--act viii of 1859 (civil procedure code), section 240. - - there bad been an attachment in may 1871, but it appears to us to have been removed when the proceedings in execution came to an end in the following july, for we find the defendant in 1873 applying again to hare the property attached, which he would not have done if it was then under attachment; 51. 2. the judge's finding that the plaintiff purchased in bad faith, which is based on the error that he knew at the time that there was a subsisting attachment, necessarily falls to the ground, for there is no reason to suppose that it was not a bond fide purchase for valuable consideration......under attachment; and in the reports made on his application no mention is made that there was an attachment subsisting, but on the contrary we find that the court, on the 28th november 1873, issued orders for attachment. we must give effect to what appears to have been the object and intention of the orders in the former proceedings, and this is the principle laid down in the full bench ruling of this court--ahmud hossein khan v. mahomad azeem khan h.c.r. n.w.p. 1869 p. 51.2. the judge's finding that the plaintiff purchased in bad faith, which is based on the error that he knew at the time that there was a subsisting attachment, necessarily falls to the ground, for there is no reason to suppose that it was not a bond fide purchase for valuable consideration. we decree the appeal and.....
Judgment:

Oldfield, J.

1. Nor are we of opinion that plaintiffs purchase is void by reason of there being subsisting an attachment of the property at the time of his purchase. There bad been an attachment in May 1871, but it appears to us to have been removed when the proceedings in execution came to an end in the following July, for we find the defendant in 1873 applying again to hare the property attached, which he would not have done if it was then under attachment; and in the reports made on his application no mention is made that there was an attachment subsisting, but on the contrary we find that the Court, on the 28th November 1873, issued orders for attachment. We must give effect to what appears to have been the object and intention of the orders in the former proceedings, and this is the principle laid down in the Full Bench ruling of this Court--Ahmud Hossein Khan v. Mahomad Azeem Khan H.C.R. N.W.P. 1869 p. 51.

2. The Judge's finding that the plaintiff purchased in bad faith, which is based on the error that he knew at the time that there was a subsisting attachment, necessarily falls to the ground, for there is no reason to suppose that it was not a bond fide purchase for valuable consideration. We decree the appeal and reverse the decrees of the lower Courts, and decree the claim with costs in all Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //