Skip to content


Velchand Chhaganlal Vs. Capt. S.R. Musson - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Appeal No. 190 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR633
AppellantVelchand Chhaganlal
RespondentCapt. S.R. Musson
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 64, 73, order xxi-rule 48-decree-execution-attachment-assets-salary of government officer.;where the salary of a government officer is once attached under the code of civil procedure, and then another attachment takes place, the party attaching subsequently is entitled to claim rateable distribution under section 73 of the civil procedure code, because the salary attached amounts to assets within the meaning of the section.;sorabji edulji warden v. goaind ramji (1891) i. l. r. 16 bom. 91, followed.;there is no inconsistency between the explanation to section 64 and the provisions of order xxi, rule 43, clause (2), of the civil procedure code, 1908. - .....91 as meaning ' all a man's property, of whatever kind, which may be used to satisfy debts or demands existing against him.' and that decision is quoted always as a leading case on the subject. where the salary of a government officer is once attached under the code of civil procedure, and then another attachment takes place, the party attaching subsequently is entitled to claim rateable distribution under section 73 of the code, because the salary attached amounts to assets within the meaning of that section. that was the view taken by telang j. in sorabji edulji warden v. govind ramji which has been the established law of this court and the principle laid down in which has been adopted by the legislature in the explanation to section 64 of the code of civil procedure, act v of 1908......
Judgment:

N.G. Chandavarkar, J.

1. The word 'assets' has been defined by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji ILR (1891) 16 Bom. 91 as meaning ' all a man's property, of whatever kind, which may be used to satisfy debts or demands existing against him.' And that decision is quoted always as a leading case on the subject. Where the salary of a Government Officer is once attached under the Code of Civil Procedure, and then another attachment takes place, the party attaching subsequently is entitled to claim rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code, because the salary attached amounts to assets within the meaning of that section. That was the view taken by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji which has been the established law of this Court and the principle laid down in which has been adopted by the Legislature in the explanation to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act V of 1908. There is no inconsistency between that explanation and the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 48, Clause (2) of that Code. The latter provisions point out what the officer there mentioned should do.

2. For these reasons the order is confirmed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //