Skip to content


K.T. Ellusah Vs. Ruppu Rangayyan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ562
AppellantK.T. Ellusah
RespondentRuppu Rangayyan and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....the appeal against the order of july 16th, the appellant, the party who asked for an order for rateable distribution under section 295 of the civil procedure code, was an attaching creditor not of the judgment-debtor in the suit in which the application for rateable distribution was made (o.s. no. 52 of 1904) but of the judgment-creditor in that suit. this being so it is not a case where 'the court holds assets for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor' within the meaning of the section. the application under section 295 was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the order of the 16th july. the appeal is dismissed with costs.2. as regards the appeal against the order of august 13th - an order for the payment out of the whole of the money in court in o. s. no. 52.....
Judgment:

1. As regards the appeal against the order of July 16th, the appellant, the party who asked for an order for rateable distribution under Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code, was an attaching creditor not of the judgment-debtor in the suit in which the application for rateable distribution was made (O.S. No. 52 of 1904) but of the judgment-creditor in that suit. This being so it is not a case where 'the Court holds assets for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor' within the meaning of the section. The application under Section 295 was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the order of the 16th July. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

2. As regards the appeal against the order of August 13th - an order for the payment out of the whole of the money in court in O. S. No. 52 of 1904 to another attaching creditor (Ruppu Kangayyan) - the application on which the-order appealed against was made was resisted on the ground that the appellant was entitled to rateable distribution. As we have pointed out in our judgment in the other appeal, he is not so entitled.

3. We decline to consider the point taken in appeal that the appellant was entitled to payment as a prior attaching creditor, since it seems clear that this was not the ground on which he resisted the application in the lower Court.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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