K.S. Ramamurti, J.
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against an order passed by the Sub-Court, Erode, directing the arrest of the appellant in the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 122 of 1964. The decree that is sought to be executed is for costs decreed in O.S. No. 122 of 1964 as per the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1967. That decree was against the two respondents in the execution petition, the appellant Ramaswami, and another Kailasam, who are the defendants in O.S. No. 122 of 1964. The appellant owed a large sum of money, about Rs. 41,500 to the respondents herein, who arc bankers. As the appellant Ramaswami alienated his properties, the respondents became apprehensive and obtained an agreement of sale from the appellant dated 18th December, 1962 to sell the house of the appellant to the respondents in discharge of the amounts due to the latter. It is also evidenced by a registered agreement between the parties, dated 27th December, 1962 and the title deeds were also delivered to the respondents. But in January, 1963, the title deeds were handed over to one broker Kailasam on the representation that there was a proposal to sell the property and that the sale proceeds would be paid to the respondents. But in breach of faith, an equitable mortgage was created in favour of a third party for a sum of Rs. 15,000 as if on 6th September, 1962. Thereupon the respondents filed the abovesaid suit O.S. No. 122 of 1964 and obtained a decree for specific performance and this suit was decreed, as observed earlier, on 23rd February, 1967, with costs amounting to Rs. 5,000. The application for arrest was resisted by the appellant. The trial Court found that the appellant had sold one house of his within 3 days after the judgment on 26th February, 1967 for a sum of Rs. 5,000 and the appellant also realised on 16th March, 1967 a sum of Rs. 6,454-15 in execution of a decree (obtained by him) in E.P. No. 198 of 1967 in O.S. No. 470 of 1962. In other words, the appellant had come by within one month after the judgment a sum of Rs. 11,154.15. The appellant is also carrying on a mundi business. The trial Court took all these facts into account and ordered arrest.
2. I have perused the evidence of the appellant and I am satisfied that he has not duly accounted for this large sum of money of Rs. 11,000 which came into his hands within about a month alter the decree. He has not produced his accounts. He has not given any satisfactory explanation as to what he has done with the money. Having regard to the prior course of Court proceedings referred to, there can be no doubt about it that the appellant has in his possession a large amount but would not pay the decree-holders. I see no ground for interference.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court is Harpal Singh V. Hira Lal : AIR1955All402 , in support of his contention that the mere fact that the judgment-debtor was in possession of assets at a particular point of time would not be sufficient, because at the time when he is sought to be arrested, the assets would have been utilised by the judgment-debtor for some other purpose. That decision is distinguishable, as in the present case, I am not satisfied that the judgment-debtor has satisfactorily accounted for as to what he had done with the sum of Rs. 11,000. On the other hand, I am clearly of the view that the money is still with him but yet he would not pay the decreeholders.
4. The result is, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.