In execution of a decree obtained by A against, B, certain property belonging to B is attached. During the pendency of the attachment, B mortgages the property to C. The property is then sold in execution of the decree and purchased by D.

In execution of a decree obtained by A against, B, certain property belonging to B is attached. During the pendency of the attachment, B mortgages the property to C. The property is then sold in execution of the decree and purchased by D. Correct Answer Here, the mortgage having been made contrary to the attachment is void as against A's claim, and D is entitled to take the property free from the mortgage created by B

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?
Commercial mortgages, farm mortgages and home mortgages are categories of
Which of the following statements is correct?
An attachment order may come to an end by
A. Satisfaction of decree.
B. Setting aside or reversal of decree.
C. Dismissal of execution application for decree holder's default.
D. Death of the decree holder.
E. Agreement/compromise between the parties.
Select the correct answer:
Where any property has been attached in execution of decree and the court, for any reason, passes an order dismissing the execution-application but omits to give any direction as to attachment?
A, B, C, D and E are jointly and severally liable for Rs. 1,000 under a decree obtained by F. A obtains a decree for Rs. 100 against F singly and applies for execution to the Court in which the joint decree is being executed.
A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' are jointly severally liable for Rs. 2,53,000/- under a decree obtained by 'F'. 'A' obtains a decree for Rs. 2,00,000/- against 'F' singly and applies for execution to the Court in which the joint decree is being executed. The Court has to:
X' obtains money decree against 'Y'. In execution of the money decree, 'X' attaches moneys belonging to 'Y' lying with 'Z'. Then 'Z' is called-
X sues A and B on a promissory note executed by A, B is A's nephew, and he is joined as a defendant on the ground that A and B are member of a joint Hindu family, and that the note was for a debt binding on the family. None of the defendant appears at the hearing and an ex parte decree is passed against both the defendants.
The decree against A proceeds on the ground that the note was passed by him and against B on the ground that the debt was incurred for a family purpose. B applies for an order to set aside the decree, alleging that the summons was not served upon him and that the debt in respect of which the note was passed by A was not incurred for a family purpose. It is not disputed that the amount was actually advanced to A.
Within the meaning of the provisions of section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee, and when the principal money of any two or more of the mortgages has become due:
A' holds a decree against 'B' for Rs. 5000/-. 'B' holds a decree against 'A' for Rs. 3000/-. Both 'A' and 'B' apply for execution of decree to a Court which has jurisdiction to execute both decrees. The Court may