Skip to content


Nagu Reddiar Vs. Veerappa Mudaliar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Mad135; 61Ind.Cas.815
AppellantNagu Reddiar
RespondentVeerappa Mudaliar and anr.
Cases ReferredSubbiah Pillai v. Alliar Rowther
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rules 53(6) - decree, attachment of, without notice to judgment-debtor--decree satisfied--judgment-debtor, right of, to have satisfaction entered up--person attaching decree, whether can object. - .....in small cause suit no. 932 of 1917 the second respondent before me obtained a decree against the decree holder in small cause suit no. 97 of 1918. the decree of the first respondent against the petitioner was dated 9th april 1918. the second respondent applied for attachment of the decree in small cause suit no. 97 of 1918 on the 10th april 1918. the order was made on the 22nd april 1918. the petitioner's case is that without knowledge of the attachment he paid the amount to the decree-holder on the 25th may 1918 and obtained a receipt therefor. he files the receipt in court and asks that satisfaction may be entered.2. the decree-holder in small cause suit no. 97 of 1918 does not appear to oppose this application for satisfaction. it is opposed by the decree-bolder in small cause suit.....
Judgment:

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. This is an application by the judgment-debtor in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin to record satisfaction. In Small Cause Suit No. 932 of 1917 the second respondent before me obtained a decree against the decree holder in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918. The decree of the first respondent against the petitioner was dated 9th April 1918. The second respondent applied for attachment of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 on the 10th April 1918. The order was made on the 22nd April 1918. The petitioner's case is that without knowledge of the attachment he paid the amount to the decree-holder on the 25th May 1918 and obtained a receipt therefor. He files the receipt in Court and asks that satisfaction may be entered.

2. The decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 does not appear to oppose this application for satisfaction. It is opposed by the decree-bolder in Small Cause Suit No. 932 of 1917 on the ground that there was payment by the judgment-debtor and that the transaction was a collusive one between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, The lower Court has come to the conclusion that no payment was made. There is no finding that the receipt produced is not genuine. Upon that question there is the un-contradicted evidence and I am not prepared to agree with the learned Vakil for the counter-petitioner that this matter should be remitted for a finding by the first Court. There can be no doubt that if no notice was given of the attachment under Order XXI, Rule 53, Clause 6, of the Civil Procedure Code the attachment cannot affect any transaction which may be entered into between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder, My attention was drawn by Mr. Swaarinadha Aiyar to Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code which suggests that the only party who is competent to object to the recording of satisfaction is the decree-holder. The language of the Order lends support to this contention. It is also supported by a decision of this Court in Subbiah Pillai v. Alliar Rowther 2 Ind. Cas. 523 where the learned Judges say that it is open to a decree-holder to give up his claim altogether and if satisfaction is entered up, it will not be open to the attaching creditor to question the transaction. Mr. Ramabhadra Aiyar has tried to distinguish this case on the ground that in that case there was an actual record of satisfaction, whereas this is an application to enter up satisfaction. I do not see how the distinction in any way affects the principle to be applied. Under Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code if the decree-holder does not object, the Court is bound to enter up satisfaction. No doubt, if before the alleged payment an interest has been secured to a third party under the decree the judgment-debtor will be subject to all the equities enuring to the person to whom such an interest has accrued. That principle has also been recognised in the decision quoted before me. Therefore, I must hold that, unless it can be shown that prior to the date of the alleged payment, an interest was secured to the second respondent by virtue of his attachment, it is not open to him to question the entering up of satisfaction of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918.

3. The learned Vakil for the petitioner has suggested that there is no evidence to show that there was any notice given to the judgment-debtor. That is a matter which can be easily ascertained by a reference to the proceedings relating to the attachment. I must, therefore, ask the lower Court to return a finding on the question whether the petitioner in this case had notice of the attachment, either through Court or otherwise. For this purpose the Court can send for the records of the case or admit any document that may be produced in support of the contention on either side. In fresh oral evidence is permitted. The finding will be submitted in sis weeks and seven days are allowed for objections.

4. In persuance of the order contained in the above judgment the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin submitted the finding that the petitioner had no notice of the attachment.

5. The Civil Revision Petition coming on for final hearing this day after the return of the finding of the lower Court upon the issue referred by this Court for trial, the Court delivered the following.


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