Chettiattil Muhamod vs Kunhi Koru and Others Punnoli Madhaviamma and Another Vs Ambali Kunhi Koru and Others

The ex-parte decree was set aside on the 3rd February 1900. Notwithstanding this, an order for attachment of property in execution of that

decree was made on the 19th February 1900, and the attachment was actually made on the 10th March 1900. On the 8th February 1901 a

revised decree was passed.

When the attachment was made, and when the order for attachment was made, there was no decree in existence and we are entirely unable to

see how any order or attachment so made could have any force or validity. We cannot agree with the District Judge that the fact that the decree

had been transferred for execution to another Court could give the attachment any additional validity. The attachment not being based on any

decree in existence at the time was null and void, and the fact that a decree was subsequently passed in terms of the decree that was set aside had

not the effect of restoring the original decree nor could it operate to render the attachment valid. We set aside the decrees of the Courts below and

remand the suits to the Court of First Instance for trial of the fourth issue in Second Appeal No. 376, and the second issue in Second Appeal No.

592, and for disposal in accordance with law. Costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court will abide the result.