Skip to content


Kanai Lal Mullick Vs. Ahed Bux Mondul and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in39Ind.Cas.562
AppellantKanai Lal Mullick
RespondentAhed Bux Mondul and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 51 - attachment, when complete. - .....he had certain property of the judgment-debtor attached. a claim was put in by the present opposite party on the ground that he had purchased from the judgment debtor at a private sale. the munsif upheld the claim finding that the claimant had proved his purchase, his khas possession, and possession through tenant before the attachment. it is now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the munsif was wrong in stating that the purchase by the opposite party was before the attachment. that purchase was on the 27th march 1916. it is urged that the attachment took place on the 22nd march 1916.2. what happened on the 22nd march was that the court passed an order for attachment. it appears in fact that processes not issued till the 4th april.3. it is further argued on behalf of the.....
Judgment:

Beachcroft, J.

1. The petitioner in this Rule is the decree-holder. He had certain property of the judgment-debtor attached. A claim was put in by the present opposite party on the ground that he had purchased from the judgment debtor at a private sale. The Munsif upheld the claim finding that the claimant had proved his purchase, his khas possession, and possession through tenant before the attachment. It is now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Munsif was wrong in stating that the purchase by the Opposite party was before the attachment. That purchase was on the 27th March 1916. It is urged that the attachment took place on the 22nd March 1916.

2. What happened on the 22nd March was that the Court passed an order for attachment. It appears in fact that processes not issued till the 4th April.

3. It is further argued on behalf of the decree-holder that the attachment dates from the date that the order is passed by the Court for the issue of attachment. I cannot accede to that proposition.

4. Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code provides the mode of attachment of immoveable property. In my opinion, until the procedure provided by that order has been followed, the attachment is not complete; in other words, the attachment had not been made at the date of the purchase by the opposite party.

5. In this view, I consider that the Rule ought to be discharged with costs two gold mohurs.

Walmsley, J.

6. I agree.


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