KORUTHU OOMMEN Vs. G RAMA WARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Decree holder in O. S. No. 160 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the petitioner in E. A. No. 1404 of 1966 on the file of the said Munsiff's Court, wherein the revision petitioner herein is the counter petitioner.

(2.) The revision petitioner obtained a decree personally against one Sankara Warrier in the said suit, O. S. 160/62, and in execution thereof attached a sum of Rs. 1200/- deposited by the said Warrier in O. S. No. 105/56 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The said Sankara Warrier, judgment debtor in the said suit O. S. No. 160/62, was the 28th defendant in the suit O. S. No. 105/ 56. The deposit was made by him for obtaining stay of the decree in O. S.105/56 as directed by this Court in the order on a stay petition filed in A. S. No. 178 of 1962. Ext. X1 dated 31-1-1967 is the copy of revised judgment in O. S. No. 105/56 after remand by this Court, and Ext. X2 dated 25 5 1962 is the copy of order on the stay petition in A. S. No. 178/62 of this Court.

(3.) O. S. No. 18 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara was a suit for partition of the properties belonging to the said Sankara Warrier's family. In this suit two members of the family, of which the respondent herein is one, were appointed receivers for management of the variyam properties. In their capacity as receivers they have filed E. A. No. 1404/66 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, claiming that the amount deposited by the said Sankara Warrier did not belong to him personally, that he was impleaded in the suit in his capacity as the karanavan of the variyam, that the deposit was made out of funds belonging to the variyam, that he had no right whatsoever personally over the amount in deposit and that, as such, the attachment on the basis that the amount belonged to the judgment debtor personally is bad and is, therefore, liable to be cancelled The learned Munsiff went into the question and having been satisfied that the claim put forward by the claimant was true, allowed the petition. It may incidentally be noted that while E. A. 1404/66 was pending enquiry, the suit O. S. 18 of 1963 was disposed of on 4-2-1967. However, the respondent herein was permitted to continue the proceedings in E. A. 1404/66 in her capacity as a member of the family, though the petitioners in E. A. had ceased to be the receivers. This revision is directed against the order allowing the claim petition.