MURUGAIYA MUDALIAR Vs. AYYADORAI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an, independent appeal arising out of the same suit as Appeal Suit No. 14 of 1905. The present appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit, and only two contentions have been argued before us. (1) That he is entitled to recover his share of the areca nut trade from defendants Nos. 2, 8 and 12, that the one-twelfth share of the family property which accrued to him by survivorship on the death of the 3 defendant must in any case be held free of the 8 defendant's attachment.

(2.) The first point has been dealt with by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 22 of his judgment, and, in our opinion, rightly decided, against the plaintiff. His claim depends solely on the interested evidence of his own father, the 1 defendant, and an abstract of accounts said to have been prepared by him: and no explanation is offered for the failure of the plaintiff and the 1 defendant to claim the money due to them long ago, especially, when it was so badly needed. The areca nut trade admittedly ended in 1890: and the present claim is long time-barred as against the 8 defendant at any rate.

(3.) In support of his second contention, the appellant relies solely on the view expressed in Zamindar of Karvetnagar V/s. Trustee of Tirumalai Tirupati etc.; Devastanams 32 M. 429 : 2 Ind. Cas. 18 to the effect that an attachment in execution of a decree does not operate to create a charge and gives an attaching creditor, no higher right that to have the property kept in Custodia legis pending determination of his right.