Madras HC Upholds Attachment Of Husband’s 50% Share In Couple’s Property, Finds Singapore Decree Was On Merits

Indian Bank obtained a judgment in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against the appellant’s husband, who had guaranteed a debt.

To recover the outstanding amount, the Bank sought execution in India and obtained attachment of the husband’s 50% share in a property jointly owned with the appellant.

The appellant applied under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC to raise the attachment, arguing that the property was mortgaged to Axis Bank, that her share was greater than 50%, and that the Singapore judgment was not given on the merits and could not be enforced in India.

The learned Master dismissed her application, and the Single Judge dismissed her appeal. She then filed this appeal.

Section 13 CPC provides that a foreign judgment is conclusive on matters directly adjudicated between the parties, subject to specified exceptions, including where it was not given on the merits.

Under Section 44-A CPC, a decree of a superior court of a reciprocating territory may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the relevant District Court.

A judgment may be given on the merits where the court considers evidence and passes judgment upon it; brevity alone does not establish otherwise.

Under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, absent evidence showing the parties’ respective contributions or interests, joint purchasers are presumed to hold equal shares.

Under Section 48 of that Act, a later attachment is subject to previously created rights and interests.

The Court found that the Singapore proceedings involved the husband’s appearance through counsel, a filed defence, consideration of affidavit evidence and exhibits, and a hearing before judgment.

The judgment’s brevity therefore did not show that it was not given on the merits; Singapore was also treated as a reciprocating territory, making the decree executable under Section 44-A CPC.

As to the property, the attachment concerned only the husband’s 50% share.

The appellant produced no material establishing a larger share, so the Court applied the presumption of equal interests under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Any existing mortgagee’s rights remained a matter for that mortgagee to assert and did not, on the grounds raised, invalidate the attachment.

Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the appeal without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.