Skip to content


Rajendra Nath Das Vs. Chairman, Jessore District Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Cal408,137Ind.Cas.672
AppellantRajendra Nath Das
RespondentChairman, Jessore District Board
Excerpt:
- .....not done, the attachment is liable to be set aside. the learned munsif remarks in his judgment that rule 60 is a complete answer to this objection and this is also contended for by the learned advocate for the opposite party in this court. rule 47 is a new provision and it has been said that it was made because a share or interest in moveable, property is incapable of actual seizure. there is nothing in rule 60 preventing the court from releasing the entire property from attachment, and if it is moveable property, so that a share of it is in- capable of actual seizure, it would be the better course for the court to release the entire property and proceed by way of attachment under rule 47. i do not see why this should not be done in this case. the order of the learned munsif, dated 20th.....
Judgment:

S.K. Ghose, J.

1. The Chairman of the District Board obtained a rent decree against some persona and in execution of that decree he got the following attached, namely three boats, one cow, one cycle, and one water pot. The petitioner in this rule filed an objection for investigation under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., claiming the moveables as belonging solely to him. The learned Munsif bus found that the cow belongs to the claimant, but that as regards the remaining moveables he has only a half-share. In that view he has directed that a half-share be released from attachment. The present rule was issued by my learned brother Hitter, J., on the ground that the learned Munsif ought to have hold that without complying with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 47, there could be no legal attachment and as that was not done, the attachment is liable to be set aside. The learned Munsif remarks in his judgment that Rule 60 is a complete answer to this objection and this is also contended for by the learned advocate for the opposite party in this Court. Rule 47 is a new provision and it has been said that it was made because a share or interest in moveable, property is incapable of actual seizure. There is nothing in Rule 60 preventing the Court from releasing the entire property from attachment, and if it is moveable property, so that a share of it is in- capable of actual seizure, it would be the better course for the Court to release the entire property and proceed by way of attachment under Rule 47. I do not see why this should not be done in this case. The order of the learned Munsif, dated 20th March 1931 keeping a half share of the moveables in question in attachment, is set aside and the lower Court is directed to proceed according to law. The Rule is made absolute but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs in this Court.


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