Skip to content


Macgregor Vs. the Cawnpur Sugar Works Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.181
AppellantMacgregor
RespondentThe Cawnpur Sugar Works Ltd.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv 1882), section 433 - attachment before judgment--conduct before suit--attempt at alienation by defendant. - .....the plaintiff is to satisfy the court that the defendant, with intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that maybe passed against him, is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property. the materials on the record show that the defendant has been in a more or less embarrassed position, that during november 1907, he sold away two parcels of land ostensibly with the object of paying outstanding rent decrees, and that he has further transferred his interest in a zurpeshgi lease for over rs. 2,000. it is also shown that shortly before the time when these transactions took place notice had been given by the plaintiff of his claim to enforce the contract of 1906. from these circumstances, the subordinate judge drew the inference that the defendant was.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Court below made under Section 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment of the property of the defendant before judgment in the suit.

2. In a case of this description, the plaintiff is to satisfy the Court that the defendant, with intention to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that maybe passed against him, is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property. The materials on the record show that the defendant has been in a more or less embarrassed position, that during November 1907, he sold away two parcels of land ostensibly with the object of paying outstanding rent decrees, and that he has further transferred his interest in a zurpeshgi lease for over Rs. 2,000. It is also shown that shortly before the time when these transactions took place notice had been given by the plaintiff of his claim to enforce the contract of 1906. From these circumstances, the Subordinate Judge drew the inference that the defendant was about to dispose of his property and that his iniention in so doing was to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree which might ultimately be passed against him.

3. The facts, as they appear in the proceedings of the Court below, have not been challenged, and, we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge has erroneously estimated their bearing. But it has been suggested by the learned Vakil for the appellant that in order to bring the case under Section 483, of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must be proved that the attempt at alienation was made after the commencement of the action. This contention is, in our opinion, based upon a narrow construction of Section 483. It is open to the Court to look to the conduct of the parties immediately before the suit and to examine also the surrounding circumstances, and from these to draw an inference as to whether the defendant is about to dispose of his property, and, if so, with what intention. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.


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