A prior sale agreement can warrant lifting attachment, subject to safeguarding unpaid maintenance claims.

The appellant relied on agreements to sell dated 22 March 1984 and 5 July 1984, and obtained a decree for specific performance against the husband of respondent No. 1 in O.S. No. 348/1989.

Respondent No. 1 had obtained a maintenance decree against her husband in O.S. No. 165/1984 on 16 February 1991, but the decree remained unpaid.

She commenced execution proceedings in 2001, and the suit properties were attached.

The appellant’s application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC to remove the attachment was dismissed by the Executing Court and that decision was affirmed in appeal.

Whether the attachment could be sustained despite the appellant’s prior agreement of sale dated 22 March 1984 and alleged delivery of possession, having regard to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the appellant’s application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC despite the decree for specific performance concerning the same properties.

Order XXI Rule 58 CPC provides for adjudication of claims and objections to attachment of property in execution.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was raised in relation to the appellant’s prior agreement and alleged possession.

The Court treated the appellant’s contractual rights, arising before the maintenance decree and supported by a subsequent decree for specific performance, as grounds for lifting the attachment, while requiring further payment to safeguard the maintenance decree-holder.

The Court considered the appellant’s agreements and specific-performance decree to represent rights predating respondent No. 1’s maintenance decree, while also recognising that she had received nothing under that decree.

In balancing those circumstances, it took account of the appellant’s payment of Rs. 5,00,000 and respondent No. 1’s age and prolonged deprivation of maintenance.

The Court considered that a further deposit of Rs. 2,00,000 in the execution proceedings would adequately protect her claim while allowing the appellant to proceed with enforcement of the specific-performance decree.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent orders below, allowed the appellant’s Order XXI Rule 58 application, and raised the attachment.

The appellant may enforce the specific-performance decree after depositing Rs. 2,00,000 in Ex. No. 74/2001 within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The Rs. 5,00,000 already paid is to be treated as payment towards respondent No. 1’s maintenance dues.