P. A. KULKARNI J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals by respondent-1 are directed against the common order dated 1-1-1983 passed by the 9th Additional city Civil Judge, City Civil Court, bangalore, in Miscellaneous Nos. 27/82 and 87/82 raising the attachment and allowing both the petitions. ( 2 ) APPELLANT filed a suit in O. S. No. 44/73 against M/s. Steel Construction company (P) Ltd. , respondent-2 in MFA no. 1232/83 and respondent-4 in M. F. A. . No. 1233/83 for recovery of damages on account of non-supply of electrical goods. The said suit was decreed for Rs. 2,84,329/- and odd. The State of Karnataka sued out execution in old Execution No. 17/76 and new Execution Case No. 77/80 pending on the file of the City Civil Court and got attached the immovable propeny of respondent-2 on 7-10-1976. The court ordered sale of the said property on spot on 6-1-1983 and the sale in court on 10-1-1983. Respondent-2 which is a Private limited Company is running an Industry. The provisions of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 and the Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions act 1952 and the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 are applicable to the industry run by respondent-2. It appears that respondent-2 did not contribute its shares of Provident Fund and Insurance and did not pay gratuity as required under the provisions of the said three acts. Under the provisions of the said three Acts, proceedings were initiated against respondent-2 to recover the amount due from it. A certificate was issued to the Deputy Commissioner by the authorities concerned to recover the amount due from respondent-2 under the provisions of the said three Acts. That certificate was forwarded by the Deputy commissioner to the Special Tahsildar for p. U. C. and Misc. Recoveries, Bangalore, to effect recover of amount due from respondent-2. Under the provisions of the said three Acts, the amount due from respondent-2 was to be recovered as if it was arrears of land revenue. The special Tahsildar, P U. C. and Misc. Recoveries, bangalore Taluka proceeded to recover the amount due from respondent-2 by attachment and sale of immovable properties. Under the provisions of the said three Acts, the amount due from respondent-2 was to be recovered as if it was arrears of land revenue. The special Tahsildar, P U. C. and Misc. Recoveries, bangalore Taluka proceeded to recover the amount due from respondent-2 by attachment and sale of immovable properties. In accordance with the procedure laid down under the Land revenue Code, he attached the very same property bearing No, 10/1 Pampa Mahakavi road, Bangalore 4, and that is the property in Execution No. 77/80 also and sold that property in two bits He sold one bit on 15-3-1980 to K. V. Venkataramaiah shetty, respondent-1 in M. F. A. . No. 1233/83 and has sold another bit on 16-4-1980 to respondent 1 in M. F. A. . No. 1232/83. The sale certificates were also issued in favour of these two auction purchasers. Subsequently in Execution Case No. 77/80 sale proclamation was issued. At that point of time, respondent-1 in both the appeals filed these two Miscellaneous applications under Order 21 Rule 58 c P. C. to raise the attachment effected in the said Execution Case. ( 3 ) BOTH the petitions were resisted by the appellant State of Karnataka. ( 4 ) THE court below allowed both the miscellaneous Cases and raised the attachment. Hence these two appeals by the State. ( 5 ) SIMILAR question arose in V. S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar v. S. Noordeen ind Another (A. I. R. 1978 Kerala 11 ). Para 3 of the said judgment reads as : in this connection two questions arise for consideration. Firstly what is the effect of a prior attachment against an earlier sale in pursuance of a subsequent attachment and secondly whether the decree-holder in O. S. No. 95/ 53 had obtained an enforceable charge by the compromise decree. An attachment is the order prohibiting and restraining the defendant from transferring or charging the attached property by sale, gift or otherwise and all persons from so receiving it (See 0. XXI R. 54 and Appendix E Form No. 24 of Civil p. C.) and S 64 of the Civil PC. provides that private transfer or delivery of property attached shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Its effect therefore is only to prevent alienation and not to confer title by way of charge or otherwise on the attaching decree-holder. provides that private transfer or delivery of property attached shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Its effect therefore is only to prevent alienation and not to confer title by way of charge or otherwise on the attaching decree-holder. Further it is only aimed at private alienations. It does not prevent involuntary alienations. On this aspect of the matter there is no difference between attachment in execution of a decree and an attachment before judgment. Order xxxviii Rule 10 C. P. C. makes this position clear. That rule provides that the attachment before judgment shall not affect the rights existing prior to the attachment or persons not parties to the suit, nor bar any person holding decree against the defendant from applying for sale of the property attached. Such being the effect of an attachment, whether before or after decree, it does not bar a court sale in execution of another decree and with the court sale the interest of the judgment-debtor passes to the auction purchaser and there is nothing left to be sold later at the instance of another decree holder who may have attached the property earlier. The purpose of the attachment is solely for the purpose of protecting the attaching creditor's right to bring to sale in execution the right, title and interest in the attached property of the judgment-debtor and there is no reason for holding that it continued to affect the attached property in any way when the attached property no longer continues to be the property of the judgment-debtor. The auction purchaser takes the property free from attachment. The consequence no doubt to an earlier attaching creditor is very serious, but his rights are sufficiently safeguarded in such a situation by entitling him a rateable distribution of the proceeds of the sale. This is the only way left to a money-decree- holder when other like decree-holders proceed against the same property in execution. If this were not so complications will arise between an earlier attaching creditor and a subsequent attaching creditor. If the sale was under a private alienation with the earlier sale there is nothing left with the transferor to transfer subsequently to another. In the same manner the prior sale in pursuance of an attachment will prevail over a subsequent sale even if the latter sale was in pursuance of an earlier attachment. If the sale was under a private alienation with the earlier sale there is nothing left with the transferor to transfer subsequently to another. In the same manner the prior sale in pursuance of an attachment will prevail over a subsequent sale even if the latter sale was in pursuance of an earlier attachment. In other words with the court sale all attachment subsisting on the property will fall to the ground. I am supported in these conclusions by the decisions of the Calcutta High court in Kashy Nath Roy Chowdhry v. Surbanand Shaha (1866) ILR 12 Cal 317), of the Madras High Court in chamiyappa Tharagan v. Rama Ayyar (ILR 44 Mad. 232) : (AIR 1921 Madras 30), of the Patna High Court in Harnandan v. Pran Nath Roy (AIR 1921 Pat. 409) and of the Travancore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 333 of 1115: (14 Trav LT 767 ). It this was not so, it would give rise to great hardship and seriously affect court sales and there may not be any bidders in court sale. Hence it must be taken as fairly settled that when a property is sold in execution of a money decree it cannot be sold again at the instance of the decree-holder who had attached it before it was actually sold. The consequence is on the happening of a judicial sale all previous attachment effected upon the property sold fall to the ground. " a reference may be made to the commentary of the learned author Sarkar in his Civil Procedure Code, 6th Edition, page 713. It reads as :" 'liable to sale' (Sec. 60; Or. 21 r. 53 ). If after attachment of a decree it is sold in auction in execution of another decree, the property is not 'liable to sale'. "this is also the view taken in Prem v. Mulka (A. I. R. 1939 Lahore 380 ). ( 6 ) THE provisions of the Civil Procedure code make it absolutely clear that the effect of the attachment is to prohibit the judgment debtor who is the owner of the property, from selling or in any way alienating the property in question. It does not apply to involuntary sales like court sales or sales held by the authorities under the various Acts. It does not apply to involuntary sales like court sales or sales held by the authorities under the various Acts. The property in question had been already sold by the authorities concerned and separate bits of sele property have been purchased by the concerned respondent 1 in both the cases. Now the Judgment debtor M/s. Steel Construction Co. , Private Limited has no subsisting interest in the property which is capable of being sold in a court auction. Therefore the attachment got effected by the State of Karnataka in execution No. 77 of 1980 has no effect at all. Therefore the court below was justified in raising the attachment got effected by the State of Karnataka in execution No. 77 of 1980. ( 7 ) THUS there is no merit in both the appeals and both the appeals are dismissed. No costs in both the appeals. --- *** --- .