“Attachment Before Judgment Prevails Over Subsequent Sale — Any Transaction in Violation is Void”: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the established principle of civil law that any sale executed after valid attachment before judgment is void against the decree-holder. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which had refused to exclude the attached property from execution sale proceedings. The Court categorically held, “Attachment effected prior to the sale will prevail and any subsequent sale deed will be deemed void to the extent of the judgment debtor’s share.” The decision solidifies the principle that judicial attachments cannot be defeated through post-attachment transactions.

The litigation arose from execution proceedings under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein the decree-holder sought sale of the judgment debtor’s property for recovery of debt under a money decree. The appellant, claiming as a bona fide purchaser, filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, contending that he had purchased the property for valid consideration in 2007 under a registered sale deed.

The underlying factual scenario revealed that the original owner, Bullemma, had acquired the property in 1957. After her death in 1983, her legal heirs, including the judgment debtor (Respondent No. 2), were in possession. The judgment debtor's husband, Yedukondalu, had a 1/3rd share in the schedule property. Significantly, the decree-holder had secured an attachment before judgment on 12th March 2007 in O.S.No.18 of 2007, which was made absolute in June 2008. Despite the subsisting attachment, the appellant proceeded to purchase the property on 21st March 2007.

The Trial Court dismissed the claim petition to the extent of the attached share, and the First Appellate Court confirmed this finding. The appellant approached the High Court through a second appeal, invoking substantial questions of law relating to the status of a mother as Karta, alienation of minors’ interest, and the validity of the post-attachment sale.

“Once Attachment is Effected, Subsequent Alienation is Void”: High Court Affirms Protection of Decree-Holder’s Rights

Justice Gopala Krishna Rao, dismissing the appeal, emphasized the paramountcy of an attachment order. The Court observed, “It is not disputed that the appellant purchased the schedule property on 21.03.2007 subsequent to the attachment effected on 12.03.2007. The said attachment was absolute by 24.06.2008, and the subsequent sale transaction is clearly hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.”

The Court underlined that the appellant, being closely related to the judgment debtor, was fully aware of the attachment. The vendors under the sale deed included the judgment debtor and her children, and the transaction was construed as a device to shield the property from lawful execution.

On the argument of the appellant about the minor children’s rights, the Court referred to the doctrine of pious obligation under Hindu Law and recorded, “The debt contracted by the judgment debtor was for family necessity, binding upon her children under the pious obligation principle, and they cannot defeat the legitimate recovery proceedings by such alienation.”

Substantial Questions of Law Do Not Survive When Concurrent Findings Are Well Founded

The High Court meticulously reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Justice Rao remarked, “In a second appeal, unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or against settled law, interference is unwarranted. Both courts have rightly held, after proper appreciation of evidence, that the sale deed to the extent of 1/3rd share is void.”

The Court emphasized that neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court committed any error in law or misappreciation of facts warranting High Court’s interference. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573, it reiterated the presumption against a party who avoids the witness box, observing, “When the judgment debtor remained ex parte and did not contest execution proceedings, a presumption arises that the rights pleaded by the appellant were without merit.”

With a clear and well-articulated judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the inviolability of attachments preceding a sale, reinforcing the protective umbrella provided to decree-holders. By recognizing the doctrine of pious obligation and giving effect to judicial attachments over dubious post-attachment transactions, the Court safeguarded the integrity of execution proceedings.

The judgment stands as a firm precedent against attempts to nullify decrees by cloaking property transfers through close relatives during ongoing litigation. As Justice Rao succinctly concluded, “The attachment prevails over the sale, and the rights of the decree-holder cannot be undermined by transactions executed after the attachment was legally effected.”

Date of Decision: 16th July 2025