LALA TILAKDHARI LAL Vs. JAMES FURLONG AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit sought to recover a certain sum of money due to him from defendant Syed Korban Ali, who, it appears, was a batwara amin, employed on the part of Government, and to have it declared that certain fees, which were in deposit in the Collectorate, were mortgaged to him by the said amin; and that under that mortgage, he (the plaintiff) held a prior lien upon those fees, to the Court of Wards, defendant No. 2, who appears to have also, in execution of a decree, attached those fees in order to recover certain money to which the defendant No. 2 was entitled. It appears that the plaintiff brought a previous suit against the defendant No. 1, and obtained a decree in that suit. His present suit is specially for a declaration of his lien upon those fees, and of his right to obtain them in preference to defendant No. 2.

(2.) Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Judge has dismissed it, firstly, because the attachment of the defendant No. 2 had been carried out before the plaintiff had obtained any decree declaring his lien; and, secondly, because the mortgage was indefinite in its terms, and could not be sustained. It is on these two points that the special appeal has been pressed before us.

(3.) I am of opinion that the Judge below is wrong on both the points. The attachment on the part of defendant No. 2 was merely with a view to prevent the amin from taking the money out of Court. It is not material whether the attachment was before or after the judgment. The question still remains, viz., after the attachment to whom is the money to be given, and that is the point to determine which this suit is brought, and the determination of that point rests wholly on the question as to whether the plaintiff had obtained a prior lien upon the money.