C P VASANTARAJAN Vs. PARVATHAMMANI GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor in E. A. No. 143 of 1950 in E. P. No. 90 of 1949 in O. S. No. 34 of 1931.

(2.) The facts are: The applicants in E. A. No. 143 of 1950 are the decree-holders in O. S. No. 63 of 1945 for a large amount of Rs. 62,000 against the Zamindar of Punganoor. The judgment-debtor, the zamindar of Punganoor, held a decree in his favour for costs in Privy Council App. No. 46 of 1943 arising from O. S. No. 34 ot 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor against one Raja Mahadeva Royal Varu. That decree was attached under Order 21, Rule 53, C. P. C. in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 63 of 1945 and the final order on that attachment petition is ex. A-1 dated 17-6-1948. In pursuance of that attachment the petitioners executed the Privy Council decree in E. P. No. 90 of 1949 and the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor deposited the decree amount of Rs. 14,389-14-0 on 11-4-1950 into Court. One Rani Parvathamma holds a decree in O. S. No. 60 of 1948 for a sum of nearly a lakh of rupees, against the Zamindar of Punganoor and she attached the Privy Council decree and the attachment was made absolute on 27-6-1949 and she has also taken out execution in other ways against the Zamindar of Punganoor. There are other money decrees against this Zamindar of Punganoor in O. S. No. 136 of 1946 and O. S. No. 34 of 1930 and the decree-holders therein claimed rateable distribution. The decree-holders in O. S. No. 63 of 1945 claimed the entire amount on three grounds (a) that it was specifically earmarked for payment towards satisfaction of their decree; (b) that they in terms of their decree hold a charge on the foot that the words "a charge on the Punganoor estate" in their decree mean moveable and immoveable properties of the Zamindar of Punganoor; and (c) that they are transferees by equitable assignment of the Privy Council decree on the foot of a letter which is said to have been passed by the Zamindar of Punganoor.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has exhaustively examined these three grounds and came to the conclusion that the decree-holders in O. S. No. 34 of 1931 did not make out either singly or cumulatively these grounds for claiming the entire amount. Therefore he ordered rateable distribution and hence this civil revision petition.