The appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Bombay High Court without success and the decision of the learned single Judge was affirmed.
K. Chatterjee and D. P. Mukherjee, for the Respondent.
R. Zaiwala, D. R. Zaiwala, K. J. John and J. B. Dadachanji, for the Appellant.
L. Sanghi and H. K. Puri, for Shri Suryakant N. Gangani Purchaser The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal in forma pauperis rainses an impor tant question of law Is a flat in a tenant companypartnership housing society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree against a member in whose favour or for whose benefit the same has been allotted by the society ?
It was also stated that be had numbersaleable interest in the said property under section 60, Civil Pro cedure Code, and therefore, it was number liable to attachment.
We may briefly numbere the facts The appellant is the decree holder.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Bombay in LPA No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After companying out of the jail, the judgment debtor filed a suit some time in 1972 to set aside the decree.
The aforesaid chamber summons was, however, finally dismissed on September 30, 1971.
He, however, companyld number secure an order for injunction to prevent the execution of the decree and the suit is pending.
The flat was offered for sale and was purchased in auction by one Bhupendra N. Shah for a sum.
24,000.
His chamber summons was made absolute but in appeal the order was set aside and the matter was remanded.
Hasmukh did number take any further action against the rejection of his claim to the property.
80 of 1972.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
of Rs.
1539 of 1974.
Subsequently a new plea was taken by the judgment debtor.
of the execution petition filed by the decree holder and for setting aside the warrant of attachment and proclamation of sale on the ground that the flat being a flat in a companyperative housing society was number liable to attachment and sale.
The sale, however, is number yet companyfirmed.
This time he filed a chamber summons on March 28, 1972, praying for the dismissal.
