Judgment N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Prakash tatia, the learned counsel for the appellant and mr. R. R. Nagori, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of the money suit filed in the year 1957 and decreed in the year 1960. In execution, the subject property of the judgment debtor was attached on 21. 2. 1970 and sold to respondent Nathmal in auction for a sum of Rs. 16,500/ -. The respondent purchaser was put in possession of the subject property on 28. 7. 1977 by the order of the executing Court dated 25. 7. 1977. The appellant Rashtra Unnati Vidhyalaya claiming itself to be an educational institution filed an application under Section 151, Order 21 rule 99 and 100 C. P. C. for restoration of the possession on the ground that it was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in July, 1977. The learned District Judge, Bikaner by order dated 10. 8. 1977 rejected the application having found that on applicants own saying, its induction was after the attachment of the property and the lease being also a transfer, the delivery of the property was void by virtue of section 64 C. P. C. ( 3 ) THE appellant preferred an Execution first Appeal against the order of the learned district Judge, Bikaner dated 10. 8. 1977. Unfortunately, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Chief Justice sitting singly on 13. 11. 1986. The restoration application was also rejected by order dated 10. 12. 1986. The appellant preferred a Special Appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed by order dated 15. 7. 1987. The appellant filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court which was registered as s. L. P. (Civil) No. 1237/87. It was avered in the affidavit of the learned counsel filed before the Supreme Court that his father had suffered a heart attack and on account of his serious illness, he could not attend the Court for a period of one month. The apex Court observed that there was no reason as to why the affidavit filed by a respected member of the Jodhpur bar should not have been acted upon. The apex Court observed that there was no reason as to why the affidavit filed by a respected member of the Jodhpur bar should not have been acted upon. Accordingly, the Apex Court by order dated 30th september, 1998 set-aside the judgment of the high Court on application for restoration of appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 C. P. C. The application for restoration was allowed. The court directed the Division Bench to proceed with the hearing of the appeal on merit after notice to the parties. The matter came up before us on 29. 5. 2000. In view of the order passed on 29th May, 2000, the main Execution First Appeal filed before the Single Bench is taken up for hearing. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Prakash Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant that judgment-debtor had only transferred the possession by leasing out subject property and not the right and title of the property. Thus the transfer of possession cannot be held void under the provisions of section 64 C. P. C. It is also contended that the subject property was not the property in dispute in the suit (original suit being money suit ). Hence, lispendense does not apply. The learned counsel has also distinguished the decision of the Apex Court rendered in M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. v. His highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar and Ors. on the ground that in the said case, the lease itself was the subject matter of the suit and therefore principles of lispendense was not applicable. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are not pursuaded to take a different view than that the one reached by the learned executing Court. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be convenient to read section 64 C. P. C. which is extracted as follows:-"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, divident or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. " ( 6 ) THUS, Section 64 C. P. C. enacts that a private alienation of property after attachment is void as against claims enforceable under the attachment. " ( 6 ) THUS, Section 64 C. P. C. enacts that a private alienation of property after attachment is void as against claims enforceable under the attachment. The object of the section is to prevent fraud on decreeholders and to secure intact the rights of attaching creditors and of those creditors who have obtained decrees and are entitled to satisfaction out of the assets of the judgment-debtor. This also includes purchase of the property in auction in satisfaction of the decree. The word transfer is used in the most generic sense and includes all species of contract which pass real rights in property from one person to another. A "private transfer" means a voluntary transfer such as a- sale, mortgage, lease or gift. Thus creation of any tenancy or claim of status of tenant under such tenancy i. e. after attachment is void being in contravention of Section 64 C. P. C. Taking any other view will fustrate the object of section 64 C. P. C. ( 7 ) IN om Prakash Garg v. Ganga Sahari the property in question was attached on 21/ 12/1962 and sold in execution on 4. 9. 1963. During the subsistence of the attachment, the property was leased out to the appellant before the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed to be the mortgagees tenant. The Apex Court held that lease was affected by Section 64 c. P. C. and he could not have claimed the status of a tenant as against the purchaser of the property in execution. The facts of the instant case is very much similar to the case of the supreme Court in om Prakashs case (supra ). In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Cost easy. Appeal dismissed. .