Skip to content


Jageshar Prasad Vs. Mt. Janki - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All357
AppellantJageshar Prasad
RespondentMt. Janki
Excerpt:
.....till the amin directed him to hand it over to kishan narain, the judgment-debtor. , it is the amin who is primarily responsible for the safe custody of moveable property attached by him......reattached in execution of mt. janki's decree. there is no flaw in the attachment. the contention of jageshar prasad, the applicant, that he ought to have been given information that the motor car had been reattached, has no basis in law. jageshar prasad took the property from the amin, and it was to the amin to whom he should have handed it over. under order 24, rule 43, civil p.c., it is the amin who is primarily responsible for the safe custody of moveable property attached by him. the amin is permitted by rule 122, order 21, civil p.c., to hand over the property to a custodian or supurddar. it is true that when a proper custodian has been selected by the amin, the amin's responsibility for the goods ceases, but this does not mean that the supurddar becomes a public officer within the.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Gawnpore, dated 3rd December 1932, by which he called upon the Supurddar to hand over a motor car, which had been attached and handed over to him for safe custody. It appears that the motor car was attached before judgment in a Small Cause Court Suit No. 1663 of 1931, situated at Cawnpore. The plaintiff in this case was one Lachmi Narain and the judgment-debtor was Kishan Narain,

2. The opposite party, Mt. Jankis's husband, obtained a decree in suit No. 1024 of 1927 in the Court of the Munsif of Deoria against Kishan Narain. The decree was transferred to the Munsif's Court at Cawnpore and an application was made for its execution. In execution of that decree a warrant of attachment was issued against the same motor car which had been attached in the Small Cause Court Suit No. 1663, mentioned above. The warrant for attachment mentioned that the property sought to be attached had already been attached in the suit already mentioned in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge. When the motor car was attached in the Small Cause Court suit, the Amin handed it over to the applicant, Jageshar Prasad, and took a Supurdnama from him. When an attachment order was issued in execution of Mt. Janki's decree, the Arnin returned the warrant with the endorsement that he had effected an attachment and that, as the property had already been handed over to a Supurddar, it was not necessary to hand it over again to a Supurddar. It appears that the decree that was passed in Lachmi Narain's suit was satisfied, and we are told that Jageshar Prasad honestly and at the instance of Lachmi Narain handed over the motor car to Kishan Narain, the judgment-debtor. When in execution of Mt. Janki's decree it was sought to sell the motor car, it was not forthcoming. Thereupon the learned Subordinate Judge gave Jagoshar Prasad two week's time to produce the motor ear. As we have said, it is against this order that this application in revision has been filed. It is urged before us that Jageshar Prasad had no notice of the fresh attachment under decree No. 1024 of 1927 passed by the Munsii's Court at Deoria; that he ought to have been informed of this attachment and that therefore he is not liable to hand it over to the Court at the instance of Mt. Janki. Some argument was based on the supposed Relief that no information of attachment had been given to the Small Cause Court Judge at Cawnpore, by the Munsif at Cawnpore who was executing Mt. Janki's decree. It has been found that such an intimation was given. Now the question which we have to decide is whether Jageshar Prasad's duty ended on the decree of Lachmi Narain being satisfied or that he was bound to hold the property till the Amin asked for it, or till the Amin directed him to hand it over to Kishan Narain, the judgment-debtor.

3. The attachment in the case of Mt. Janki was made under Rule 52, Order 21, Civil P.C. The Judge, Small Cause Court, had the property in his custody, and he was given an intimation of that fact. The same Amin, who had attached the property in the suit before the Judge, Small Cause Court, made an endorsement to the effect that the motor car had been reattached in execution of Mt. Janki's decree. There is no flaw in the attachment. The contention of Jageshar Prasad, the applicant, that he ought to have been given information that the motor car had been reattached, has no basis in law. Jageshar Prasad took the property from the Amin, and it was to the Amin to whom he should have handed it over. Under Order 24, Rule 43, Civil P.C., it is the Amin who is primarily responsible for the safe custody of moveable property attached by him. The Amin is permitted by Rule 122, Order 21, Civil P.C., to hand over the property to a custodian or supurddar. It is true that when a proper custodian has been selected by the Amin, the Amin's responsibility for the goods ceases, but this does not mean that the supurddar becomes a public officer within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 52, Civil P.C., and that any fresh order of attachment should be communicated to him and not to the Amin. We think that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was right and that the application should be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the application with costs.


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