ITTA PADMANABHAN Vs. SANKARANARAYANA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in O.S. 184 of 1955 on the file of the Shertalai Munsiffs court is the revision petitioner. In execution of his decree he had attached the decree in O.S. 851 of 1112, got himself impleaded as additional decree holder and got the properties sold by the court in 1956. The sale was set aside under O.21 R.89 on deposit of the sale amount. Subsequent to this in 1958 the respondent attached the decree in O.S. 154 of 1112 for the realisation of the amount due to him under the decree in O.S. 647 of 1952. It was objected by the revision petitioner on the ground that the amount in court deposit belongs only to him. The contention was negatived and the revision has been filed against the order.

(2.) In the case in Bhattoo Singh v. Raghunadhan Prasad Singh (AIR 1933 Pat. 303) the case law on the subject has been fully reviewed and it was held:

(3.) In Atmaram Akoji v. Uderaj Sheodin ( AIR 1933 Nag. 347 ) the question was considered and it was held: