Skip to content


Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. Seetharama Iyer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1895)5MLJ151
AppellantSrinivasa Iyengar
RespondentSeetharama Iyer and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the balance rateably among the three creditors. to this order petitioner objects in revision and urges that manickam chetty attached after the money was realized and that this was not a case for rateable distribution under section 295, code of civil procedure. neither of these contentions seems tenable. section 295 applies to every case where by the process of the court in execution, property becomes available for distribution amongst judgment-creditors. money paid into court by reason of a prohibitory order does not become the property of the creditor at-whose instance the prohibitory order was issued without a further order directing payment to him. until then his position is that of an attaching creditor and under the code of civil procedure several decree-holders may.....
Judgment:

Muthusami Aiyar, J.

1. Three persons hold money-decrees against one Seetaramiah and one Venkatasami had with him certain stamps and other things of Rs. 95-2-0 value belonging to the-j judgment-debtor.

2. Petitioner had the property attached by prohibitory order on the 22nd December 1892. Anotherjudgment-creditor Muni Ammal attached the same on 16th January 1893 in execution of her own decree. Venkatasami paid Rs. 95-2-0 due by him to the judgment-1'', debtor into court on the 3rd February 1893. On the same day but after payment into court one Manickam Chetty attached it as money due in the custody of the court on the 30th March 1893. 'The District Munsiff paid out of the deposit petitioner's costs and,' divided the balance rateably among the three creditors. To this order petitioner objects in revision and urges that Manickam Chetty attached after the money was realized and that this was not a case for rateable distribution under Section 295, Code of Civil Procedure. Neither of these contentions seems tenable. Section 295 applies to every case where by the process of the court in execution, property becomes available for distribution amongst judgment-creditors. Money paid into court by reason of a prohibitory order does not become the property of the creditor at-whose instance the prohibitory order was issued without a further order directing payment to him. Until then his position is that of an attaching creditor and under the Code of Civil Procedure several decree-holders may successively attach the same property and claim rateable distribution. The mere payment into court does not constitute realization. There must be a further order directing its payment to a particular creditor or creditors. I see; no reason to disturb the order in revision. I dismiss the petition with costs.


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