VELCHAND CHHAGANLAL Vs. CAPTSRMUSSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE word "assets" has been defined by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji (1891) I. L. R. 16 Bom. 91, 96 as meaning " all a man s property, of whatever kind, which may be used to satisfy debts or demands existing against him." And that decision is quoted always as a leading case on the subject. Where the salary of a Government Officer is once attached under the Code of Civil Procedure, and then another attachment takes place, the party attaching subsequently is entitled to claim rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code, because the salary attached amounts to assets within the meaning of that section. That was the view taken by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji which has been the established law of this Court and the principle laid down in which has been adopted by the Legislature in the explanation to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act V of 1908. THEre is no inconsistency between that explanation and the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 48, Clause (2) of that Code. THE latter provisions point out what the officer there mentioned should do.

(2.) FOR these reasons the order is confirmed with costs.