Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010139442026 2026:GAU-AS:9943 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/310/2026 SMT. SEEMA RAI W/O SRI NAGENDRA RAI, R/O COLLEGE ROAD, PARBOTIA, P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 786125 VERSUS SMT. SATABDI BOSE AND ANR D/O SRI SURANJIT BOSE, R/O PARBOTIA GORIKHA PATH, P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 786125 2:ANUP KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE GOKUL SINGH TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT PROFESSOR COLONY C/O MD. KHALID-UD-DIN ANSWARI (OWNER OF JYOTI HOTEL) NEAR MOTHER TERESSA MISSIONARY CHARITY TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.07.2026 Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 2/9 petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2026, passed by the learned District Judge Tinsukia (executing court hereinafter), in Money Execution Case No. 35/2019, arising out of matrimonial disputes between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 25.06.2026, the learned executing court had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC along with the petition filed under Section 151 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No. 1 herein instituted one money execution case, being Money Execution Case No. 35/2019, against the respondent No. 2 herein, for recovery of money, arising out of a compromising settlement of a matrimonial dispute between her and the respondent No. 2. But, the respondent No. 2, through his attorney had sold the schedule land in question for valuable consideration and delivery of possession on 15.11.2025, to the respondent No. 1, prior to the order dated 15.05.2026, passed by the learned executing court, whereby learned executing court had ordered for auction sale of the schedule property. 4.1. Mr. Kalita further submits that the petitioner herein, being the lawful owner of the schedule property, had filed a petition, on 22.06.2026, under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, as objector/third party along with another petition, under Section 151 of the CPC, for stay of execution of the order dated 15.05.2026. But, the learned executing court, vide order dated 25.06.2026, had rejected both the petitions of the petitioner herein. 4.2. Mr. Kalita also submits that the learned executing court was at unmindful state while deciding the scheme of adjudication of objections of third parties, Page No.# 3/9 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC. The learned executing court also did not record the submission, made before the court, in the impugned order and order in the order of attachment, dated 02.06.2022 and as such, it cannot be said to be a valid attachment order, as per provision of Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC and that the order dated 02.06.2022, is void and not enforceable in law. 4.3. Mr. Kalita also submits that the learned executing court misread, misconceived and misinterpreted the provision of Order XXI Rule 58 and 102 of the CPC and Section 64 of the CPC and also Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that it had only centralized its mind to establish fraud and deception allegedly perpetrated by the judgment debtor and the decree holder and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also the impugned order dated 25.06.2026, passed by the learned executing court. 6. It is not in dispute that the order of attachment of the suit property was passed by the learned executing court in Money Execution Case No. 35/2019. But, it appears that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein was executed by the power of attorney holder, namely Binod Singh. 6.1. Accordingly, a question was put to Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to while the order of attachment passed by the learned executing court was operating, how the power of attorney holder can sell the suit property to the petitioner and whether the same is legally permissible? 6.2. Then, Mr. Kalita submitted that the attachment order itself is an invalid Page No.# 4/9 order. 6.3. Again, Mr. Kalita was asked as to how the Non-Encumbrance Certificate, which is required for execution of a sale deed, was obtained, while the attachment order was in force? 6.4. Mr. Kalita submitted that the court had issued the same and thereafter the sale deed was executed. 6.5. Further, attention of Mr. Kalita was drawn to the observation made by the learned executing court in the impugned order that ‘As the entire contract and sale of the scheduled lands had been effected by playing fraud on the court, the sale deed of the petitioner and her contentions along with her alleged rights, covered by the mutation entries, payment of land revenue etc. cannot be sustained’ and he was asked to respond to the same. 6.6. Mr. Kalita then submitted that the said observation is wrong. 6.7. Attention of Mr. Kalita was also drawn to the observation made by the learned executing court in the impugned order that ‘As from the entire facts revealed from the records and upon hearing the learned counsel for the decree holder, it is apparent that the sale with the present petitioner was executed to defeat the legitimate claims of the decree holder and from the records itself the fraudulent actions of the judgment debtor gets reflected and no further proof is necessary to establish fraud that has been played at the instance of the Judgment debtor, in as much as, the vendor, i.e. the constituted attorney, was only the agent for the judgment debtor and did not have any independent rights Page No.# 5/9 to sell the property as is disclosed from the sale deed itself that Binod Singh acted on behalf of the principal, i.e. the judgment debtor, namely Anup Kumar Singh, whose only intention was to defraud the decree holder and deny her the rightful entitlements, for which this court is of the considered opinion that the vendor, i.e. the constituted attorney had acted on behalf of the judgment debtor in respect to the scheduled properties in collusion with the judgment debtor to alienate the charged scheduled properties during attachment and executed the sale deed dated 15.11.2025, in furtherance of the fraudulent intention of the judgment debtor, for which this court does not find any merits in the petition submitted by the petitioner, consequently the same shall stand dismissed. Having said that, it is also held that the sale deed dated 15.11.2025, as detailed above also does not create any rights in favour of the petitioner’ and he was asked to respond to said observation. 6.8. Mr. Kalita, then submitted that the aforesaid finding of the learned executing court is also wrong, as the attachment order itself is an illegal order. 7. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein has been claiming her right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of the sale deed, dated 15.11.2026. It is also an admitted fact that said sale deed was executed while the suit property was under attachment as per order of the learned executing court dated 02.06.2022. In that view of the matter, the sale deed, dated 15.11.2026, appears to be ex-facie illegal and in-operative. And that being so, it confers no legally enforceable right upon the petitioner to get the same enforced by filing the present petition. Page No.# 6/9 7.1. It is to be noted here that in view of Section 64 of the CPC, any private transfer or sale of property by the judgment debtor (or on their behalf) after it has been attached in execution of a decree, is void against all claims enforceable under that attachment. It is to be noted here that Section 64 of the CPC provides that :- Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached (or any interest therein), or any payment to the judgment debtor contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. 7.2. It is to be noted here that the attachment creates a charge in favor of the decree-holder. Therefore, a subsequent private sale, by the judgment debtor, does not convey valid title to the buyer that can override the decree-holder's rights. The buyer takes the property subject to the attachment, and the sale can be ignored or set aside in execution proceedings. The effect of such sale is void against the decree-holder, as the transfer does not defeat the execution. The attached property remains available for sale by the court in execution proceedings. The decree-holder can proceed with the court auction/sale, as if the private transfer never happened. 7.3. The executing court cannot allow to frustrate the decree, through such maneuvers. The executing court can disregard the sale and proceed to execute the decree. Post-attachment sales in execution are directly hit by Section 64. In holding so this court derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nancy John Lyndon vs. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 78. In the said case it has been clarified that post- attachment dealings by the judgment debtor do not bind the decree-holder or automatically. In the case of Om Prakash Garg vs. Ganga Sahai and Page No.# 7/9 Others, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 553, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the alleged lease under which the appellant claims the status of a tenant, was made in contravention of Section 64 of the CPC and thus voidable at the instance of the respondent. 7.4. Thus, it becomes apparent that the learned executing court can proceed with sale of the property in execution and the petitioner herein, who is private buyer cannot successfully obstruct on the basis of their purchase, which is hit by Section 64 of the CPC. 8. Since the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, challenging the impugned order dated 25.06.2026, she cannot insist upon the adjudication of the application filed by her, on merit, by this Court. 9. Further, from a perusal of the impugned order and the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the sale deed allegedly executed by the power of attorney holder on 15.11.2025, by playing fraud upon the court. Admittedly, the Non-Encumbrance Certificate, required for execution of sale deed, was issued by the Court while the attachment order was operating. And it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner and the judgment debtor and also the attorney holder to frustrate the judgment of execution which is being sought in the Money Execution Case No. 35/2019. 10. It is well settled principle in Indian Jurisprudence that ‘fraud vitiates everything’ or ‘fraud unravels everything’. This principles means that fraud corrupts and renders null and void any judicial act, order, decree, judgment, or transaction obtained through it. Fraud is an extrinsic collateral act that vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and no advantage can be taken from it. In several decisions Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a judgment or Page No.# 8/9 order secured by fraud or suppression of material facts is a nullity in the eyes of the law and can be challenged at any stage. 10.1. Notable amongst them is S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a preliminary decree obtained by playing fraud on the court (by suppressing material documents) was a nullity. Further it has been observed that ‘fraud avoids all acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.’ Courts are meant for justice and no litigant can take advantage of their own fraud. A decree obtained by fraud is non-est (non-existent) in law. 10.2. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterating the principle: "Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together." Further it has been held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Even principles of natural justice need not be followed if an order was obtained by fraud. The Court emphasized that fraud is a conduct that induces another to part with something or to act to their prejudice. 10.3. The aforesaid proposition is affirmed in the case of Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Civil Appeal No. 7777/2023). It has been held that "fraud unravels everything" and can even unravel Supreme Court judgments if justice demands it. 11. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid proposition and law, this Court finds that the impugned order suffers from no irregularity and illegality requiring any interference of this Court. 12. Since the petitioner has attempted to frustrate the decree passed by the learned trial court as well as the attachment order passed by the learned Page No.# 9/9 executing court, by playing fraud, this Court is of the view that this kind of practice deserves to be deprecated and also to be discouraged and in order to discourage such mis-adventure, this court is inclined to imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/-, (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, upon the petitioner, who also appears to be in hand in gloves with the judgment debtor and his constituted attorney, namely Binod Singh, the vendor. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner herein, before the District Legal Services Authority, Tinsukia, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 13. In terms of above, this petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant