Judgment : The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S.No.149 of 1981 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore. the Suit O.S.No.773 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is (i) for setting aside the order, dated 20.12.1977 in the claim petition under O.21, Rule, 58, Civil Procedure Code, E.A. No.367 of 1977 in E.P. No. 299 of 1975 in O.S.No.755 of 1971, (ii) and, for directing defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 to.-the- plaintiff for wrongful, attachment and wrongful sale of the suit property. The said dismissal was no doubt, confirmed in C.R.P.No.678 of 1978 by this Court on 4. 1978. However, since the attachment in question was effected on 211. 1975 and since to such a case the law existing prior to the 1976 amendment of C.P.C. was alone applicable, the present suit has been filed under Rule 63 of O.21, C.P.C. (The said Rule 63 was deleted by the above said 1976 amendment, the present suit is strictly under the said Rule 63, though it is wrongly mentioned as a suit under O.21, Rule 58(5), C.P.C. now existing. 2. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit property under Ex.B-1 sale deed, dated 21. 1970 for Rs.4,700 from one Subbammal who was the judgment debtor in the abovesaid O.S.No.755 of 1971 and whose legal representative Veerammal is the 7th defendant in the present suit. As per the said sale deed the plaintiff retained a sum of Rs.2,000 for the discharge of a prior debt of the abovesaid Subbammal due to one Sivakami Ammal. The said Sivakami Ammal got a decree against Subbammal in O.S.No.755 of 1971 in respect of the said debt and only in that suit the attachment of the suit property was made as stated above on 211. 1975. The legal representatives of the said decree-holder Sivakami Ammal are defendants 1 to 6 in the present suit. To realise the said decree amount the suit property has also been subsequently sold to the 8th defendant in the present suit. The said 8th defendant is the 8th respondent in the second appeal, while defendants 1 to 6 are respondents 1 to 6 herein and the 7th defendant is the 7th respondent herein. To realise the said decree amount the suit property has also been subsequently sold to the 8th defendant in the present suit. The said 8th defendant is the 8th respondent in the second appeal, while defendants 1 to 6 are respondents 1 to 6 herein and the 7th defendant is the 7th respondent herein. But all the respondents herein excepting the 8th respondent, the court auction purchaser of the suit property, remain unrepresented. The said court auction purchaser alone filed the abovesaid First Appeal No. 149 of 1981. 3.Though the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for holding the attachment invalid and setting aside the dismissal order in the claim petition and granting the abovesaid compensation of Rs.1,000, the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal, negativing the claim of the plaintiff under Ex.B-1, and upholding the attachment effected. Aggrieved by the said decision of the lower appellate court the above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as follows: Though Subbammal has got the vendor’s charge for unpaid balance price under Sec.55 (4-B) of the Transfer of Property Act, the abovesaid Sivakami Ammal, decree-holder/creditor of Subbammal cannot avail of the said charge; so as to attach the very property and bring it to court auction. In respect of this contention he relied on several decisions including a judgment of a Division Bench in Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678: 42 L.W. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad- 872: 1935 M.W.N. 9.42:203 I.C 462. According to him, if at all, only the vendor Subbammal’s right under Sec.55(4-B)of the Transfer of Property Act can be attached and not the suit property as such and at any rate, since the title in the suit property had already passed to the plaintiff under Ex.B-1 dated 21. 1970, it cannot be sold at all through court auction to the 8th defendant as it has been done in the present case. He further submits that his client is ready to deposit the abovesaid sum of Rs.2,000 into court for disbursement of the same in accordance with law, In fact the plaintiff as P.W. 1 has deposed as follows: 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 8th respondent sought to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678: 42 LW. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 8th respondent sought to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678: 42 LW. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 872:1935 M.W.N. 942:203 I.C. 462 and also sought to rely on Mela Ram and Sons v. Ram Das Joshi and Sons, I.L.R. 1943 Lah. 17: A.I.R. 1942 Lah. 275: 44 P.L.R. 415, U.P.Govemment v. Manmohan Das, 1941 A.L.J. 518: I.L.R. 1941 All. 691:1941 A.L..W. 880: A.I.R. 1941 All. 345:196 I.C. 425 and Sheonandan Lal v. Zainal Abdin, I.L.R. (1915)42 Cal. 849. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The abovesaid question, involved in the present case, has been clearly decided in Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678:42 L.W. 544:A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 872: 1935 M. W.N. 942:203 1.C. 462. There, it has been held that when there is an unpaid balance of the purchase money, the attachment fastens to the judgment debtor’s right to recover the money, that is to say, to the charge which the unpaid vendor is given, by Sec.55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, upon the property, but that the property having passed by the conveyance from the judgment-debtor, cannot be sold in execution of the decree against the judgment debtor. In coming to the said conclusion the Division Bench also followed Motilal v. Bhagvan Das, 31 All, 443 (also cited by the learned counsel for the appellant) and also Veeraraghavayya v. Kamala Devi, A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 193 and Teralanath v. Santkumar, 57 Cal. 274, the following quotation from Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678:42 L. W. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 872: 1935 M.W.N. 942:203 I.C. 462, is significant: “What was and could be attached by the creditor was the right, title and interest of his debtor at the date of the attachment and that right as to. the unpaid balance of the purchase money, and the attachment therefore holds good to the extent of that balance.” The Division Bench therefore, in the abovesaid Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678:42 L.W. 544. A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 872: 1935 M.W.N 942: 203 I. C. 462, set aside the sale made by the lower court therein. No doubt, learned counsel for the, 8th respondent sought to, distinguish Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678: 42 L.W. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad 872:1935 M.W.N. 942:203 I.C. 462, and contended that the said ruling would not apply to the present case. 872: 1935 M.W.N 942: 203 I. C. 462, set aside the sale made by the lower court therein. No doubt, learned counsel for the, 8th respondent sought to, distinguish Veerappa v. Venkatarama, 69 M.L.J. 678: 42 L.W. 544: A.I.R. 1935 Mad 872:1935 M.W.N. 942:203 I.C. 462, and contended that the said ruling would not apply to the present case. But, I find that the said ruling squarely applies to the present case. Further, in M/ s.Magunta Mining Company v. Kondarami Reddi; (1983)1 A.P.L.J. (H.C.)267: (1983)1 An.L.T. 349: A.I.R. 1983 A.P. 335, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant it has also been held that whenever a claim is preferred under O.21, Rule 58, C.P.C. against the attachment of immovable properties, the fact that the properties are sold or the sale confirmed will not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim, and that the inquiry into the claim can be proceeded with and that in the event of claim being allowed, the sale and the confirmation of the sale shall to that extent be treated as a nullity and of no effect. 7. Mela Ram and Sons v. Ram Das Joshi and Sons, I.L.R. 1943 Lah. 17: A.I.R. 1942 Lah. 275: 44 P.L.R. 415 and U.P.Govemment v. Manmohan Das, 1941 A.L.J. 518:I.L.R. 1941 All 691:1941 A.L.W. 880.A.I.R. 1941 All. 345:196 I.C. 425 and Sheonandan Lal v. Zainal Abdin, I.L.R. (1915)42 Cal. 849 have actually no application to the present case. In Mela Ram and Sons v. Ram Das Joshi and Sons, I.L.R. 1943 Lah. 17: A.I.R. 1942 Lah. 275:44 P.L.R. 415, the attachment sought for was only the “amount left” with the vendee and not the property as such, sold to the vendee. The said attachment was no doubt, correct. But in the present case the property as such which has been sold to the vendee/plaintiff, is sought to be attached. That cannot be done. U.P.Govemment v. Manmo-han Das, 1941 A.L.J. 518. I.L.R. 1941 All 691:1941 A.L.W. 880. A.I.R. 1941 All. 345:196 I.C. 425, is not a case of a creditor of the vendor trying to enforce the charge under Sec.55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act available to the vendor. So, that has no application to the present case. Sheonandan Lal v. Zainal Abdin, I.L.R. (1915)42 Cal. 849, only says that the abovesaid vendor’s charge can be transferred. 345:196 I.C. 425, is not a case of a creditor of the vendor trying to enforce the charge under Sec.55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act available to the vendor. So, that has no application to the present case. Sheonandan Lal v. Zainal Abdin, I.L.R. (1915)42 Cal. 849, only says that the abovesaid vendor’s charge can be transferred. But in the present case there is no such transfer. Nor is there any plea to that effect. Even otherwise, the said decision will have no application to the question involved in the present case. 8. The net result is, attachment of the suit property as such and its subsequent sale thereafter are not valid. Accordingly, the judgment and the decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. However, the plaintiff is directed to deposit within two months from today, the abovesaid sum of Rs.2,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of Ex.B-1 (21. 1970) to the credit of the suit, for disbursement by the trial court, in accordance with law. The second appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case no costs.