1. Plaintiff is the landlord and defendant 2 is her tenant. Defendant 2 had to pay to the plaintiff thirteen tons of sugar cane as rent. A lease deed was executed recording the lease between the parties and that lease deed was deposited by defendant 2 with defendant 3 for the purpose of enabling him to draw advances from defendant 3 for the expenses of cultivation. Defendant 2 had supplied the sugar cane grown by him on the land to defendant 3 which is a Joint Stock Company manufacturing sugar, A sum of Rs. 654-7-0 was the price payable fay defendant 3 to defendant 2 in respect of the sugar cane supplied.
2. In 1953, defendant 2 had to deliver to the plaintiff fourteen tons of sugar cane as the current year's rent and arrears of rent for the preceding year. On March 4, 1953, defendant 2 addressed a letter to defendant 3 requesting it to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500-2-9 out of the money which was payable by defendant 3 to defendant 2. That letter was acknowledged by the Company and entered in its account books. An entry was also made in the ledger folio of defendant 2 and that entry in the ledger folio was marked as Exhibit D-1.
3.On 13-4-1953, defendant 1 who had obtained a money decree against defendant 2, attached the money which was to the credit of defendant 2 with, defendant 3. Defendant 3 explained to the Court that a sum of Rs. 500-2-9 out of the amount which was payable by the Company to defendant 2, had already become payable to the plaintiff and that therefore, what remained with defendant 3 was only a small sum of Rs. 154-4-9 which was to the credit of defendant 2. That small amount was sent by defendant 3 to the Court. But on the Court directing defendant 3 to send the entire amount which represented the price of the sugar cane payable by defendant 3 to defendant 2 that amount was also sent by defendant 3 to the Court.
4.The plaintiff thereafter presented a claim under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the sum of Rs. 500-2-9 which she claimed as the amount which had become payable by defendant 3 to her and was no longer a sum of money which could be attached by defendant 1 as money belonging to defendant 2. That claim having been disallowed, the plaintiff instituted a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The Court of first instance dismissed that suit. Its view was that the letter Exhibit P-3 ad-dressed by defendant 2 to defendant 3 on March 4, 1953 did not create in the plaintiff any right to the sum of Rs. 500-2-9 which defendant 3 had been instructed by that letter to pay to the plaintift. Its finding was that the entire sum of money payable by defendant 3 to defendant 2 towards the price of sugar cane supplied by defendant 2, was still the money belonging to defendant 2 and was, therefore, effectively attached by defendant 1 in execution of his decree.
6. Plaintiff appealed from the decree of the Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court in reversal of the decree made by the Court of first instance, gave the plaintiff the decree which she wanted. Defendant 1 appeals,
7. Mr. Srinivasa Rao appearing, on behalf of defendant 1 contends, that on April 13. 1953 when defendant 1 attached the sum of Rs. 654-7-0 which was with defendant 3, the whole of that amount belonged to defendant 2 and that no part of it was, therefore, claimable by the plaintiff. His submission was that what defendant 2 did when he addressed Exhibit P-3 was merely to instruct the Company to pay the sum of Rs. 500-2-9 to the plaintiff and that instruction given by defendant 2 to defendant 3 in that way did not make the plaintiff the owner of that sum of money.
8. That being so, according to Mr. Srinivasa Rao, when the attachment was made on 13-4-1953 it entitled the decree-holder to reach the entire sum of Rs. 654-7-0 in the hands of defendant 3 and payable to defendant 2. I am unable to accede to this contention.
9. When Exhibit P-3 was written by defendant 2 instructing defendant 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 500-2-9 to the plaintiff and the Company agreed to act according to those instructions by making the necessary entries in the ledger of defendant 2 to that effect what defendant 3 did was to agree to pay that sum of money to the plaintiff. That conduct on the part of defendant 3 clearly brought about an equitable assignment of that sum of money in favour of the plaintiff. That sum of money was no longer money payable to defendant 2 but had become transformed into a fund belonging to the plaintiff. After it ceased to he money payable to defendant 2 and had become a fund owned by the plaintiff, the attachment obtained by defendant 1 on 13-4-1953 was not effective to any extent in excess of the small sum of money of Rs. 154-4-9 which still belonged to defendant 2.
10. That being so, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
11. Appeal dismissed.