Skip to content


Kartick Singha Vs. Sreeputty Mirdha and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal10
AppellantKartick Singha
RespondentSreeputty Mirdha and anr.
Excerpt:
attachment - execution of decree--intervenor--claim to attached property--cause of action--civil procedure code (act viii of 1839), sections 246 and 247. - .....rejected without investigation, on the ground of the late date on which it was put in, plaintiff was left to prosecute his claim by a regular suit under section 247. he has done so, and, after a contest on the part both of the judgment-debtor and the attaching-creditor, has established his right to the property in suit. but an objection is taken to the decree, which was also taken to the suit, on the ground that, at the time when the plaintiff made his claim, the attachment had virtually ceased owing to the decree having been satisfied from other properties of the judgment-debtor.2. we concur with the court below in thinking that there is nothing in this circumstance to deprive the plaintiff of the remedy which the law provided for him. a very distinct shade of doubt would be thrown on.....
Judgment:

Cunningham, J.

1. In this case the property of the plaintiff having been attached by the defendants, the plaintiff brought his claim under Section 246 of the old Code. That claim having been rejected without investigation, on the ground of the late date on which it was put in, plaintiff was left to prosecute his claim by a regular suit under Section 247. He has done so, and, after a contest on the part both of the judgment-debtor and the attaching-creditor, has established his right to the property in suit. But an objection is taken to the decree, which was also taken to the suit, on the ground that, at the time when the plaintiff made his claim, the attachment had virtually ceased owing to the decree having been satisfied from other properties of the judgment-debtor.

2. We concur with the Court below in thinking that there is nothing in this circumstance to deprive the plaintiff of the remedy which the law provided for him. A very distinct shade of doubt would be thrown on his title by the attachment, and the seriousness of the evil is shown by the fact that the plaintiff's title has been earnestly contested by both the other parties to the suit. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to sue.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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