Skip to content


Mohamedsha Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Srinivasulu Alias Srinivasa Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ221
AppellantMohamedsha Khan Sahib and ors.
RespondentSrinivasulu Alias Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....only if the sale had not been set aside. the appellant also contends that the attachment was abandoned by the respondent, because he again caused an attachment to be made after the sale was set aside under section 310--a. this was only a precautionary step and cannot amount to an abandonment of the prior attachment, and we may add that the petitioner expressly atated in the petition that the former attachment was in law subsisting, but that if the court thought it necessary a re-attachment might issue. the decree of the subordinate judge is therefore right, and this second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The sale never having been confirmed, but having been set aside under Section 310-A, C.P.C. was not a completed sale, and that sale therefore cannot have the effect of removing the attachment which had previously been made at the instance of another decree--holder, the present respondent, who would have been entitled to rate able distribution under Section 295 of the C.P.C. only if the sale had not been set aside. The appellant also contends that the attachment was abandoned by the respondent, because he again caused an attachment to be made after the sale was set aside under Section 310--A. This was only a precautionary step and cannot amount to an abandonment of the prior attachment, and we may add that the petitioner expressly atated in the petition that the former attachment was in law subsisting, but that if the court thought it necessary a re-attachment might issue. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is therefore right, and this second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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