Judgment :- 1. This is a claim petition filed against the Company seeking to raise the attachment under the Revenue Recovery Act of a property in Sy. No. 222, Mundakayam Village having an area of 5.35 acres in extent. The property was attached by the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally, in pursuance of a certificate issued by the Liquidator and forwarded to the Collector, Kottayam, within whose jurisdiction the property was situate. This certificate was issued by the Liquidator under S.45T(3) of the Banking Regulation Act following a payment order passed by this Court under S.45D of the said Act. The applicants' claim that they have purchased the property under two sale deeds dated 17 51968 from four persons who got title over these properties from one P. K. Varghese to whom the property originally belonged. This P. K. Varghese is the debtor against whom the Liquidator has obtained a payment order in B. C. C. No. 261 of 1965. The case of the applicants is that the debtor had given possession of this property to one Luka Ulahannan under a Vechupakuthy Udampady and subsequently gifted this property to his wife and children in the year 1961 and that he had no interest in the property at the time the Liquidator applied for a payment order in B C. C. 261 of 1965. Further the debtor's wife and children along with this Ulahannan sold the property to the applicants as early as 1968 and therefore the applicants alone were entitled to this property at the time the Tahsildar took revenue recovery steps to recover the amount due from the debtor. Hence the applicants seek a declaration that the disputed properly is not liable to be proceeded against for recovering the amount due from the debtor of the Banking Company. 2. In answer to these contentions the Official Liquidator states that the Banking Company instituted a suit O. S.68 of 1951 in the District Court, Kottayam, on 25 51951 against the said P. K. Varghese and an attachment before judgment was effected on these and other properties on 25 61951 and a decree was passed on 318 1951. The disputed property was item 5 in the list of properties attached. The disputed property was item 5 in the list of properties attached. While this attachment was continuing in force the Liquidator by B. C. C. 261 of 1965 moved this Court for a payment order charged on the attached properties and by the order passed by this Court on 16th November, 1965 this Court allowed the prayer of the Liquidator and hence it is contended that the alienations if any made by the debtor must be subject to the attachment and the payment order passed by this Court. 3. The question for consideration is whether the declaration asked for by the applicants can be granted. In this connection first it has to be considered whether the applicants are in possession as stated by them. To prove that previously one Ulahannan was in possession of the property the applicants rely on Ext. B-2 an unregistered udampady dated 191123. C. W. 2 is this Ulahannan. He admits the execution of Ext. B-2 and supports the case put forward by the applicants that he came into possession of the property on the basis of Ext. B-2. Ext. B-2 being unregistered, it is not difficult to create that to suit the applicant's case. So that document by itself is not conclusive. There are two witnesses in that document. C. W. 2 admits that at least one of them is alive. But he is not examined. The stamp paper for writing Ext. B-2 is seen purchased from one vendor C. V. Maichael on 9 41123 about 4 months before the date of Ext. B-2. It appears that the name of the purchaser of the stamp is written later in a different hand and the ink has soiled the paper. Though reference is made to an udampadi of 1123 in Ext. P-4 a copy of the gift deed executed by the debtor in favour of his wife and children the date of the udampadi is not mentioned. Further as per the terms of Ext. B-2, CW-2 was to pay one half of the income of the property to the debtor after the period of six years from the date of Ext. B-2 and take a receipt. No such receipt is produced in this case. Further as per the terms of Ext. B-2, CW-2 was to pay one half of the income of the property to the debtor after the period of six years from the date of Ext. B-2 and take a receipt. No such receipt is produced in this case. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I am not satisfied that the property was in the possession of CW-2 before the attachment was effected in O. S.68 of 1951, on the file of the District Court, Kottayam in 1951 But the debtor executed a gift deed in 1961 purporting to transfer the disputed property and another in favour of his wife and children. The copy of the gift deed is produced as Ext. P-4 Reference is made in that to the possession of this property with CW-2 and so it may not be incorrect to hold that me property was not with the debtor in 1961. In 1965 a payment order was passed allowing the Official Liquidator to realise the amount due under the decree referred to above charged on the property. In 1968 by Ext. B-1 sale deed a portion of the property is seen sold to the 2nd claimant and the rest of the property is seen conveyed to the 1st applicant by CW-2 and the donees under the gift deed Ext. P-4 Since no circumstance is brought out to show that the gift deed Ext P-4 is invalid it is not possible to hold that the judgment - debtor had any interest in the property at the time the payment order was passed or the Official Liquidator move the company court for making a payment order against the debtor. 4. Counsel for the Official Liquidator contends that the property was under attachment from 195 and the alienations viz , Exts. P-4, B-1 and the other document in favour of the 1st applicant being after attachment, under S.64 of the Code of Civil Procedure these alienations are void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment am therefore the payment order can be enforced against the property as well. P-4, B-1 and the other document in favour of the 1st applicant being after attachment, under S.64 of the Code of Civil Procedure these alienations are void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment am therefore the payment order can be enforced against the property as well. The question for consideration is whether the payment order and the present steps taken by the liquidator to realise the amount are steps to enforce the claims under the attachment What has been done by the official liquidator is that on the basis of the decree obtained by the banking company the debtor under the decree was sought to be included in the list of debtors to be settled under S.45D of the Banking Regulation Act by filing a Banking Company Claim against him as B C.P. 261 of 1965 In that claim the attachment list prepared by the Amin was also tiled and a charge was claimed over the properties attached Without contest that application was allowed and a direction was given to realise the amount due from the debtor from the properties attached. 5. In this connection it is necessary to refer to some of the Sections in Part IIIA of the Banking Regulation Act. S.45D provides for the settlement of a list of debtors of banking company which is being wound up. Within 6 months from the date of the winding up order and thereafter with the leave of the High Court the Official Liquidator is required to file a list of debtors containing such particulars as are specified in the Fourth Schedule. That Schedule contains five rules. In this case we are concerned only with the first three rules. Rule I provides that each list should be verified by an affidavit. R.2 provides that the list must contain the name and address of the debtors, the amount of debt due to the banking company from each debtor, the rate of interest, the date upto which interest has been calculated; description of the papers, if any, relating to each debt and the relief or reliefs claimed against each debtor. R.3 provides that if a security other than a personal security is held by the banking company, that is required to be separately shown. R.3 provides that if a security other than a personal security is held by the banking company, that is required to be separately shown. In the case of secured debts particulars of the securities claimed by the banking company and their estimated value and the persons who have any interests in the securities are also required to be stated. In the case of a debt guaranteed by any person, the name and description of the guarantor and the documents relating to the guarantee are also required to be mentioned. On receipt of this list the court is required to make an order settling the list after giving, wherever necessary, notice to the persons affected and after making such enquiry as provided by the rules. At the time of settlement an order for payment of the amount due by each debtor and further orders in respect of the relief against the guarantor or the security are also required to be passed. Every such order will be binding on all the persons against whom the order is passed and all persons claiming under them. A copy of the order and a certificate in respect of each order describing the relief granted and name of the parties against whom a relief has been granted is deemed to be a certified copy of the decree for all purposes of execution. Interim orders for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and sale of any property can also be passed by the court at the time of settling the list or prior or subsequent thereto. This provision in S.45-D will not preclude the Official Liquidator to recover any debt due to a banking company under any other law. S.45T provides that orders under S.45-D can be enforced by the Official Liquidator through any court on production of a certificate granted under S.45-D (6). He can also recover it in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue due and for that purpose the Liquidator can forward a certificate to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the property of the person against whom any order or decision or the High Court has been made is situate On receipt of such a certificate the Collector can proceed to recover the cash from the persons specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue. He is also enabled to exercise all the powers which under the Code of Civil Procedure a civil court has for the purpose of the recovery of an amount due under a decree. This in short is the special provision contained in the Banking Regulation Act for realisation of the debts due to the company. S.2 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to the provisions of any other law in force. According to S.45A this special provision will override and shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure. S.45-A further provides that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which are not varied or inconsistent with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act shall apply to all proceedings under that part, namely Part I1I-A. That means the special provisions are in addition to the provisions in the CPC. The decrees passed and attachments effected by the civil court whether before or after the decree, are not supplanted by the orders passed under S.45-D. They will have lull effect it they are not inconsistent with the special provisions. S.64 CPC. provides that any private alienation after the attachment shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Any property attached can be sold for the realisation of the amount due under the decree and the sale proceeds appropriated for the satisfaction of the decree. The effect of a payment order by this court under S.45D is only to enable the Liquidator to proceed against the debtor in any court and to further recover the amount in the same manner as recovery of arrear of land revenue. This is an additional remedy granted to the Official Liquidator on the winding up of the banking company. This does not wipe out the earlier steps taken. This is not inconsistent with the provisions in S.64 CPC. Therefore, the attachment will be effective and will enable the Liquidator to ignore all private alienations made after the attachment. This harmonious construction of the provisions in S.2 and S.45-A of the Banking Regulation Act and S.64 C. P. C. will protect the claims of the banking company and all steps taken prior to the winding up or prior to the settlement of the list. This harmonious construction of the provisions in S.2 and S.45-A of the Banking Regulation Act and S.64 C. P. C. will protect the claims of the banking company and all steps taken prior to the winding up or prior to the settlement of the list. In this view the gift deed of 1961 and the sale deed by the donees in 1968 are subject to the attachment effected in the suit, O. S. No. 68 of 1951 on the file of the Kottayam District Court. Consequently it is open to the Official Liquidator to proceed against this property to recover the amount due under the decree and the payment order. His certificate enables the Collector and the other revenue authorities to proceed against this property in the same manner as they would proceed to recover arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act. 6. The applicant contended that the Sub Court, Kottayam, had allowed a claim petition filed by C. W. 2 when another bank took steps to recover the amount due to it from the same judgment-debtor and in support of that he produced Ext. P3 order of the Sub Court allowing the claim petition. The present banking company was not a party to that proceeding and the order passed thereon is not in any way binding on the respondent-banking company. Therefore, there is no bar to the respondent to proceed against the disputed property to realise the amount due to it from the judgment-debtor. 7. In the result, the application No. 61/76 is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.