JUDGMENT P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The property in suit belonged to the 2nd defendant. Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-3, certified copies of proceedings of court, show that the plaintiff attached the property on 6th March 1963 in execution of a money decree against the 2nd defendant, bought the property in court sale on 2nd January1964, and obtained delivery thereof on 15th March 1965. The 1st defendant, a banking company that is being wound up, obtained a certificate under section 45-D (6) of the Banking Regulation Act in respect of a simple money debt due to it from the 2nd defendant, and, in due course, forwarded the certificate to the Collector under section 45-T (3) of the Act. The Collector proceeded to recover the amount due under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act as he was bound to do by reason of section 45-T (4) of the Banking Regulation Act which says that the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount specified in the certificate as if it were an arrear of land revenue. On 2nd August 1963, the Tahsildar attached the suit property under sections 25 and 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act. The property was sold under the provisions of that Act on 29th March 1966 and was bought by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has brought this suit for a declaration of his title to and possession of the property, for a further declaration that the 1st defendant's purchase in the revenue auction pursuant to the certificate granted in B.C.C. No. 51 of 1957 is not binding on the plaintiff, and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from taking possession of the property pursuant to his purchase. 2. The 1st defendant alone contested the suit; the 2nd defendant suffered it to proceed ex parte. 3. The following issues were framed: (1) Are the attachment and court sale relied upon by the plaintiff true and valid and binding on the 1st defendant ? (2) Is the plaintiff's court auction purchase subject to the attachment effected under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the amount due from the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant? (3) Had the 2nd defendant any right, title or interest in the suit property when the 1st defendant bought the property in revenue auction? (4) Has the plaintiff obtained delivery of the property pursuant to his court auction purchase? (3) Had the 2nd defendant any right, title or interest in the suit property when the 1st defendant bought the property in revenue auction? (4) Has the plaintiff obtained delivery of the property pursuant to his court auction purchase? (5) Is the plaintiff entitled to the declaration and injunction he has sought? (6) To what reliefs? 4. Issues 1 and 4 (leaving out that part of issue 1 that asks whether the sale is binding on the 1st defendant, the answer to which depends on the answers to issues 2 and 3) must be found in favour of the plaintiff in the face of Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-3 which are not disputed. 5. Issues 2 & 3.- There is nothing in the Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act to show that an attachment effected there under creates any interest in the land. All that is done by section 26 is to give notice that, unless the arrear be paid within the date mentioned, the land will be brought to sale for recovery of the arrear. It would thus appear that an attachment under the Revenue Recovery Act no more creates a charge or other interest in the land than an attachment under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act says that any private alienation of the property attached, made subsequent to the issue of the demand notice under section 24, shall be null and void against the Government and against any person who may purchase the property under that Act. But the sale in favour of the plaintiff in this case was a court sale and not a private alienation I do not think that even an act for the recovery of public revenue can use the words, "private alienation" to include a sale by court merely because the sale is at the instance of a private party and for the recovery of private and not public dues And hence the sale is not rendered void by reason of this section. The amount due to the 1st defendant under the certificate is not public revenue due on the land so that it is obvious that the 1st defendant cannot have the benefit of section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act which says that the land shall be security for the public revenue due on it, or of the last clause of section 32 which says that all charges or in-cumbrances upon such land shall be postponed to the payment of the public revenue due on that land, or of section 44 which says that all lands brought to sale on account of arrears of public revenue due thereon shall be sold free of all in cumbrances assuming that the plaintiff's purchase in court auction can be regarded as an in-cumbrance on the land. It seems to me to follow that the plaintiff's being the earlier purchase must prevail and that the 2nd defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit property when the 1st defendant bought it in revenue auction. Under section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act it is only the defaulter's property that may be sold, and the plaintiff to whom the land belonged at the time of the sale was not in default. The 2nd defendant was the defaulter and it is for the realisation of the amount due from him that the revenue sale was held. The decisions in Sarangapani v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R.16 Madras 479 and The Dewan of Travancore v. Eravi Narayanan 29 T.L.R. 37 even if rightly decided And with great respect they can be regarded as rightly decided only if the revenue attachment creates an interest in the land Are readily distinguishable since the very basis of those decisions is that the attachment under the concerned revenue recovery statute was prior to the attachment by the civil court although the court sale was before the revenue sale. And it may be noted that in neither, case was the least attempt made to uphold the revenue sale against the court sale on the score that the court sale was a private alienation although both the concerned statutes contained provisions similar to section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act. I find these issues in favour of the plaintiff. 6. In the result the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.