Civil Procedure — Attachment before Judgment — Assigned Land — Permissibility of attachment in Motor Accident Claim proceedings — Challenge thereto in Civil Revision Petition — Dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act — M.V.O.P. — I.A. seeking attachment of property of respondent/owner — Order of Tribunal allowing attachment — Legality — Upheld.
Assigned Lands — Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 — Scope — Whether attachment by Civil Court amounts to “alienation” — Held, No — Attachment not barred under the Act.
Precedent — Reliance on Division Bench judgment in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti v. K. Guravaiah — Mortgage of assigned land to financial institution not treated as alienation — Principle applied.
A. CIVIL REVISION PETITION — Scope of Interference
Where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after conducting enquiry, allowed I.A. seeking attachment of property of respondent in M.V.O.P., and no illegality or jurisdictional error is demonstrated, interference under Article 227 is unwarranted. (Paras 3, 8)
B. ASSIGNED LAND — Right of Assignee — Attachment
It is settled law that an assignee has right to mortgage assigned land for availing loan and, in default, financial institution may bring such land to sale by auction. (Para 6)
Land inherited from original assignee can be attached in civil proceedings to secure claim of decree-holder; such attachment would culminate in sale only upon failure to satisfy decree. (Para 6)
C. ATTACHMENT ≠ ALIENATION
The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 does not prohibit attachment of assigned land by Civil Court. (Para 7)
Order of attachment by Civil Court cannot be equated to “alienation” within meaning of the Act. (Para 7)
D. PRECEDENT — DIVISION BENCH — Mortgage Validity
Where mortgage in favour of bank is not treated as alienation, and sale pursuant to such mortgage is valid, prohibition under Section 5 of the Act does not operate. (Extracted & relied upon) (Para 7)
E. HELD
Attachment of assigned land by Tribunal in motor accident claim proceedings is legally permissible. Civil Revision Petition devoid of merit and dismissed. No order as to costs. (Paras 6–8)
DISPOSITION
Civil Revision Petition No. 889 of 2025 — Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed. (Para 9)
No comments:
Post a Comment