Self-Acquired Property of Father Cannot Be Attached to Satisfy the Debts of a Judgment Debtor Son

The Appellants (Father and Daughter) filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC against the attachment of an immovable property ("subject property") in execution proceedings (COM.Ex.Nos. 240 & 241 of 2023) initiated by the Decree Holders (Respondents) against the Judgment Debtor (JDR - Appellant No. 1’s son).

Appellant No. 1 originally purchased the property on 30.07.2012 and subsequently gifted it to Appellant No. 2 via a registered gift deed on 26.06.2023.

The Commercial Court held that the JDR was a joint owner with a 1/3rd share based on a 2012 "Release Deed" (Ex. D-1) executed by the JDR’s brother, and thus maintained the attachment to the extent of that 1/3rd share.

The Appellants appealed, contending the property was self-acquired by Appellant No. 1 and the JDR never held any title.

1. Whether the Judgment Debtor (JDR) possessed any legal share or title in the subject property that could be attached for the execution of a decree.

2. Whether the attachment was validly effected prior to the transfer of the property from Appellant No. 1 to Appellant No. 2 via the registered gift deed dated 26.06.2023.

The Court applied the principles of Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, which governs the adjudication of claims to, or objections to the attachment of, property.

The Court relied on Section 64 of the CPC, which stipulates that a private transfer of property is void only if it occurs after an "effective" attachment has been executed.

The court also examined the evidentiary value of registered sale deeds vs. release deeds, applying basic principles of property law regarding self-acquired versus joint family property.

The Court analyzed the chain of title produced by the Appellants (Ex.OW-1 to OW-8), which demonstrated a clear "source of funds" path: Appellant No. 1 sold self-acquired properties in 2001 and 2012 to purchase the subject property in his sole name.

The Court found that the Commercial Court erred in over-relyng on a Release Deed (Ex. D-1); a close reading of that deed actually described Appellant No. 1 as the "absolute owner" and the siblings as having no existing interest.

Regarding the timing of the attachment, the Court observed from the order sheets that while an attachment warrant was ordered on 19.06.2023, it was returned unexecuted. The gift deed was registered on 26.06.2023, prior to any "effective" attachment, meaning the bar under Section 64 CPC did not apply.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the JDR had no share in the property and the property was the absolute property of Appellant No. 2. The attachment of the subject property in COM.Ex.Nos. 240/2023 and 241/2023 was ordered to be lifted, and the appeals were allowed.