JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur upholding the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, rejecting the petition of the Petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC ('Code' for short). 2. The undisputed facts are that opposite party No. 1 instituted Money Suit No. 2 of 1974 against opposite party No. 2 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, during the pendency of the suit, Ac. O. 62 decimals of land out of plot No. 965 of Khata No. 32 of village Nagoan along with some other lands belonging to opposite party No. 2, which in the present proceeding in the disputed land, was attached before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code on 4-3-1974. Opposite party No. 2 on 22-3-1974 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Ac. O. 72 decimals out of plot No. 965 for consideration of Rs. 2, 500/-. 3. The Petitioner filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code and stated therein that Ac. O. 70 decimals of land out of plot No. 965 was attached. He had purchased the same from opposite party No. 2 by registered sale-deed on 22-3-1974 for cash consideration of Rs. 2,500/-, obtained delivery of possession and has been in possession thereof. Therefore, the land should be released from attachment. Opposite party No. 1 in his counter stated that the alleged sale was a sham and nominal transaction without consideration just to avoid the attachment of the disputed land. Further, as the land had been attached by the court prior to the alleged sale, the Petitioner did not acquire any title or possession in respect thereof. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale was a sham and nominal transaction without consideration brought into existence to defeat the claim of opposite party No. 1. As the attachment was effected on 4-3-1974 and the sale-deed was executed on 22-3-1974, by operation of the provisions of Section 64 of the Code, the Petitioner did not acquire any title in respect of the land. Therefore, he rejected the petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. Therefore, he rejected the petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. J.P. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that attachment before judgment was effected in respect of Ac. O. 62 decimals out of plot No. 965, whereas the Petitioner purchased Ac. O. 70 decimals out of the said plot. So the identity of the attached land was not established. Further, the attachment before judgment was not in accordance with law. Similar questions were raised before the learned District Judge, who on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence opined that the identity of the attached land was not in dispute nor the legality of the attachment, because both the facts were admitted by the Petitioner in his petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. It indeed appears from the very first paragraph of the petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code where the Petitioner stated on verification that the land described in Schedule A of the petition was attached in Execution Case No. 51 of 1976. Schedule A land is Ac. O. 70 decimals out of plot No. 965 of Khata No. 32 of village Nagoan. It thus appears that the identity of the disputed land was known to both parties. The Petitioner also knew that the disputed land was attached. Therefore, there was absolutely no scope to contend before this Court that identity of the disputed land was not established and the attachment was not in accordance with law. It is well known that facts admitted need not be proved. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two learned courts below should not also be ordinarily disturbed. In this view of the matter, I hold in agreement with the learned District Judge that there cannot be any controversy about the identity of the disputed land nor can the legality of the attachment before judgment be called in question. 6. Mr. J.P. Misra next contended that the Petitioner acquired title in respect of the disputed land by virtue of the sale-deed executed on 22-3-1974. According to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below the Petitioner did not acquire any title because the disputed land had been attached earlier. 6. Mr. J.P. Misra next contended that the Petitioner acquired title in respect of the disputed land by virtue of the sale-deed executed on 22-3-1974. According to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below the Petitioner did not acquire any title because the disputed land had been attached earlier. In this connection reference has to be made to Section 64 of the Code which is quoted below for easy reference. 64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be void - Where an attachment has been made any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment debtor of any debt divided or other moneys contrary to such attachments shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. The plain construction of the aforesaid provision is that an alienation of immoveable property made after attachment shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Therefore, an alienation of property made after the attachment of judgment is void to the same extent as an alienation made after attachment under a decree. In this connection I would refer to Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. Vs. His Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar and Others. In that case the disputed property, a theatre was attached in execution of a decree against the owner thereof. While the attachment was still subsisting the owner executed a deed of lease of the theatre in favour of a company. In view of the aforesaid facts it was held that the transaction that is, the lease was struck by the provisions of Section 64 of the Code and hit by the doctrine of lis pendens within the purview of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In Official Receiver, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others Section 64 of the Code came up for interpretation and it was held that a private transfer or delivery of the property attached is not wholly void. It is void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment and not otherwise. If the intention, of the legislature had been to declare the transfer to be completely void, the words, "as against all claims enforceable under the attachment" would not have found a place in the section. Section 64 of the Code has been incorporated to safeguard the interest of the creditor. If the intention, of the legislature had been to declare the transfer to be completely void, the words, "as against all claims enforceable under the attachment" would not have found a place in the section. Section 64 of the Code has been incorporated to safeguard the interest of the creditor. It is not meant to deprive the owners of the interest of the property under attachment. As against the attaching creditor a private sale would not be effective, but if the order of attachment is withdrawn or the claim of the creditor is otherwise satisfied, the sale deed executed would convey good title to the transferee.' If the principle enunciated and referred to above is applied to the undisputed facts of this case it would be abundantly clear that the transaction in question is struck by Section 64 of the Code, as well as, the doctrine of lis pendens, because the disputed land was first attached and the private sale thereof was effected later. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim of title and possession with regard to the disputed land of Ac. O. 62 decimals out of plot No. 965 of Khata No. 32 of village Nagoan is void and ineffective as against the claim of opposite party No. 1 under the decree. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code filed by the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned courts below. 7. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the civil revision which is accordingly dismissed. Hearing fee at Rs. 100/-. Final Result : Dismissed