ARKALA PAPA RAO Vs. MOKELEY RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the MunsifMagistrate, Husurabad dated 8th March, 1961 passed in E.P. No. 12 of 1958. The necessary facts are that the petitioner had obtained a decree against the Mokeley Rajanna. In execution of that decree, some money was deposited in the Court to be paid to the decree-holder. Before the amount was actually paid to the decree-holder, a letter was sent by the Tahsilder, Husurabad on 11th February, 1961 requesting the Munsif-Magistrate to attach the amount which is payable to the decreeholder. It was stated in the letter that the said decree-holder, was a defaulter from whom the Government had to recover Rs. 2,216-11-0. The Munsif-Magistrate acceded to the request made by the Tahsildar and directed the amount in deposit to be paid to the Government. It is this order of. the Munsif-Magistrate, dated 8th March, 1961 that is now assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) It was firstly contended by Mr. Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tahsildar had no power to send a requisition to the Munsif Magistrate to attach the money and pay the same to the Tahsildar. I do not find any substance in this contention. What the Tahsildar did was to only request the MunsifMagistrate to attach the money. In other words, the intention of the Tahsildar was to see that the Government's debt should be paid. It is not disputed that the Government had to recover the money from the decree-holder and that the Government has a right to recover the same from the defaulter, in this case the decree-holder. No question of any power of the Tahsildar therefore arises because he has not attached the property nor issued any distraint warrant. The purport of the letter seems to me to be clear that he merely requested the Munsif-Magistrate to make a payment out to the Government as the Government has to recover the amount from the decreeholder who is entitled to the money lying in deposit in the Court. I do not therefore find any diffieculty in rejecting this contention.

(3.) It is true that the Tahsildar has referred to section 119 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act which has very little relevance to the letter which he has issued. I am however clear in my opinion that the Government could always approach the Court with an application to make payment out of money lying in deposit with the Court towards the discharge of Government's debt from the person who is entitled to receive the money. The question argued was only with regard to the procedure. What was contended was that such an application could not have been maintained. It is now a firmly settled view that it is not necessary that the Government should always file a suit to recover the Government debt. If any particular Act authorised the Government to recover the amount by way of certain procedure, the Government will follow that procedure. But there is no bar on the Government to make any application to the Court for making payment out from the amount already deposited into Court.