The Supreme Court's 2-part test for a bona fide purchaser under Section 64(2) CPC.

Two Shots, One Sale Deed, and a Fatal Omission in the Pleadings

Dokala Hari Babu bought a piece of land. He says he paid for it before a court had attached the property. He got a registered sale deed. But when the decree-holder, Kotra Appa Rao, came to execute the attachment, Hari Babu found himself locked out of his own purchase. The executing court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and finally the Supreme Court all told him the same thing: you never said you were a bona fide purchaser in your application. That silence cost him the property.

At stake was not just a piece of land in Andhra Pradesh. At stake was the entire framework of Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — the provision that protects a genuine buyer who pays before an attachment order is passed. The Supreme Court had to decide: can a court grant relief under that section if the buyer never pleaded the facts that trigger the protection?

What the High Court Saw

The story begins in a court of competent jurisdiction — though the judgment does not name the original executing court. What is clear is that Kotra Appa Rao had obtained a decree and moved to execute it against a property. During those execution proceedings, the court passed an order attaching the property.

Enter Dokala Hari Babu. He filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, claiming that he had purchased the property under an oral agreement and later obtained a registered sale deed dated 6 January 2015. He argued that his purchase predated the attachment order, and therefore the attachment should not bind him.

The executing court rejected his objection. Hari Babu appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in AS No. 172/2021. On 4 January 2022, the High Court dismissed his appeal. The reasoning was crisp: the application under Order XXI Rule 58 did not contain any pleading that Hari Babu was a bona fide purchaser, nor did it state that any payment was made prior to the attachment order. Without those pleadings, the court could not grant him the protection of Section 64(2) CPC.

The Supreme Court's One-Question Test

Hari Babu approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4382/2022. The Bench comprised Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Justice Shah authored the judgment, delivered on 28 March 2022.

The Court did not need to hear elaborate arguments. It asked one question: what did the application under Order XXI Rule 58 actually say?

The answer was damning. The application, as recorded in the judgment, contained no assertion that Hari Babu was a bona fide purchaser. It did not claim that any payment was made before the attachment order. It merely stated that he had purchased the property and obtained a sale deed.

The Court observed that to invoke Section 64(2) CPC, an objector must specifically plead and prove two things: first, that he is a bona fide purchaser, and second, that the transaction took place prior to the order of attachment. The provision reads:

"Section 64(2) — Private alienation of property after attachment void, exception for bona fide purchasers"

The exception is narrow. It protects only those who purchased in good faith and for valuable consideration before the attachment was ordered. But the burden lies on the purchaser to plead and prove those facts.

Hari Babu's application failed at the first hurdle. It did not even allege bona fide purchase. The Court held that without such pleading, no court could grant relief under Section 64(2). The executing court and the High Court were correct to reject the objection.

The Rule the Supreme Court Applied

The ratio decidendi is deceptively simple but operationally critical: to obtain the benefit of Section 64(2) CPC, the objector must specifically plead in the application under Order XXI Rule 58 that (a) he is a bona fide purchaser, and (b) the transaction occurred prior to the attachment order. Absence of such pleading is fatal.

This is not a technicality. It is a rule of evidence and procedure. The court cannot infer bona fides from the mere fact of a registered sale deed. The purchaser must come clean about the consideration, the date of payment, and the circumstances of the purchase. If those facts are not on record, the court has no basis to apply the exception.

The judgment does not cite any precedent. It is a straightforward application of the plain language of Section 64(2) read with Order XXI Rule 58. But its impact is significant for every litigant and lawyer dealing with attached properties.

THE PLAY: When filing an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC against an attachment, you must expressly plead that you are a bona fide purchaser and that the transaction predates the attachment order. Omit those words, and your objection is dead on arrival.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates handling execution matters, this judgment is a reminder that pleadings are not a formality. They are the foundation of the case. A client who walks in with a registered sale deed and a story about paying cash before attachment may have a strong case on facts. But if the application under Order XXI Rule 58 does not contain the magic words — "bona fide purchaser" and "payment prior to attachment" — the court will not entertain it.

For CFOs and founders who deal with property disputes, the lesson is equally stark. If you purchase a property that is subject to litigation, do not assume that a registered sale deed protects you. You must ensure that your lawyer files a detailed objection under Order XXI Rule 58, setting out the exact date of payment, the mode of payment, and the fact that you had no notice of the attachment. Without those details, the court may treat your purchase as void.

The judgment also underscores a broader principle: the CPC does not reward sloppy pleadings. The exception under Section 64(2) is a shield for the genuine buyer, but it is a shield that must be raised explicitly. A court will not raise it on its own motion.

The Bottom Line

Dokala Hari Babu lost his property because his lawyer filed an application that said too little. The Supreme Court dismissed his SLP with a single observation: the application under Order XXI Rule 58 did not plead bona fide purchase or payment prior to attachment. Without those pleadings, Section 64(2) CPC could not save him.

For every lawyer, CFO, and founder reading this: when you object to an attachment, say it clearly. Say you are a bona fide purchaser. Say you paid before the attachment. Say it in the first paragraph. Because if you don't, no court will say it for you.