Skip to content


Champyil Koppan and ors. Vs. Kolasseri Kelappan Nambiyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Mad142; 44Ind.Cas.864
AppellantChampyil Koppan and ors.
RespondentKolasseri Kelappan Nambiyar and anr.
Cases ReferredCode of Civil Procedure. See Arasayee Ammal v. Sokhalinga Mudali
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 47, order xxi, rule 63 - claim allowed--suit, subsequent, by judgment-debtor against claimant decreed--sale by judgment-debtor--re-attachment of property--claim by judgment-debtor's vendee, dismissal of--suit to establish claim, maintainability of. - 1. the respondent attached the suit property as the property of his judgment-debtor. a third party put in a claim that the property was his and succeeded. the judgment-debtor sued to set aside the settlement by virtue of which the claimant had succeeded in his claim and for possession and obtained a decree. this was not a suit under order xxi, rule 63, of the civil procedure code, which confers a right of suit only on the party against whom an order has been made rejecting his claim or his objection to another's claim. the person who objects to a claim is the attaching decree-holder. he (the judgment-debtor) then sold the suit property to the appellant. the respondent then again attached the property and the appellant put in a claim petition, and having failed in it, brought the present.....
Judgment:

1. The respondent attached the suit property as the property of his judgment-debtor. A third party put in a claim that the property was his and succeeded. The judgment-debtor sued to set aside the settlement by virtue of which the claimant had succeeded in his claim and for possession and obtained a decree. This was not a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code, which confers a right of suit only on the party against whom an order has been made rejecting his claim or his objection to another's claim. The person who objects to a claim is the attaching decree-holder. He (the judgment-debtor) then sold the suit property to the appellant. The respondent then again attached the property and the appellant put in a claim petition, and having failed in it, brought the present suit. It is practically admitted that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Arasayee Ammal v. Sokhalinga Mudali 33 Ind. Cas. 84. Nor can we agree with Mr. Menon's contention that the first attachment was revived by the result of the judgment-debtor's suit above referred to.

2. We must allow the appeal, reverse the decrees of the lower Courts and give the plaintiff a decree as prayed, with costs throughout.


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