Skip to content


Basavayya Vs. Syed Abbas Saheb and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad20
AppellantBasavayya
RespondentSyed Abbas Saheb and anr.
Cases ReferredCalcutta High Court Mussamut Rambutty Kooer v. Kamessur Pershad
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, sections 280, 281, 283--property in the possession of a judgment-debtor--attachment of right to receive a debt--specific relief act--act i of 1877, section 42--consequential relief. - - , that section 246 of that code clearly contemplates property of which the judgment-debtor is entitled to the possession in specie, is applicable to the corresponding provision of the present code......is not, in our opinion, property capable of possession within the meaning of sections 280 and 281 of the code. a similar view was taken under the code of 1859 by the calcutta high court mussamut rambutty kooer v. kamessur pershad 22 w.r. 36. the observation of phear, j., that section 246 of that code clearly contemplates property of which the judgment-debtor is entitled to the possession in specie, is applicable to the corresponding provision of the present code. this suit was. therefore, not one instituted under section 283 of the code. the appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is clear from exhibit XXXIX (the attachment order) that what was attached was a debt in respect to which prohibitory orders were issued under Section 268, Code of Civil Procedure. The attachment of a right to receive a debt is not, in our opinion, property capable of possession within the meaning of Sections 280 and 281 of the Code. A similar view was taken under the Code of 1859 by the Calcutta High Court Mussamut Rambutty Kooer v. Kamessur Pershad 22 W.R. 36. The observation of Phear, J., that Section 246 of that Code clearly contemplates property of which the judgment-debtor is entitled to the possession in specie, is applicable to the corresponding provision of the present Code. This suit was. therefore, not one instituted under Section 283 of the Code. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


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