Attachment of property by the Court Should Confine to the Proportionate Extent

If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder, for attachment to be sold. This, in the opinion of the Supreme Court (SC), is not a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119].

In other words, the attachment of property by the court should ideally be proportionate to the amount owed to satisfy a decree and the court should only attach property that is sufficient to cover the decree amount, and not more.

The Order 21 Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) states that any court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may see necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same.

In Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v Pujari Padmavathamma & Others [1977 AIR 1789], the SC states that, under Order 21 Rule 64 of the CPC, the executing court derives jurisdiction to sell properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied. The words ‘necessary to satisfy the decree‘ clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. In other words, where the sale fetches a price equal to or higher than the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation and is sufficient to satisfy the decree, no further sale should be held and the court should stop at that stage.

The Andra Pradesh High Court order in the Civil Revision Petition in Mandati Tirupathi Reddy v Immadisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao (2022) also deals with the same issue.

That means, care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction.

References

1. Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119]
2. Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v Pujari Padmavathamma & Others [1977 AIR 1789]
3. Mandati Tirupathi Reddy v Immadisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao (2022)