KOTAK AND C0 Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proposition canvassed by the appellant, namely, that from the point of time that an order for rateable distribution is passed by the executing court the monies in question cease to be the property of the judgment-debtor and become the property of the decree-holder, regardless of whether or not actual payment pursuant to the said order is made, is supported by the decisions of three High Courts namely, Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. As early as in 1922 the Madras High Court in Official Receiver of Tanjore v. M. R. Venkatarama lyer, AIR 1922 Mad 31 has taken the view canvassed by the appellant as is evident from the passage quoted hereunder:-

(2.) A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has expressed the same view in Murli Tahilram v. T. Asoomal and Co. AIR 1955 Cal 423 wherein it is observed:-

(3.) We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court in so far as the appellant is concerned, and restore the order of the executing court in so far as the appellant is concerned.