ALWAR CHETTY Vs. POOVALA VARDAPPA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this second appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the attachment of the mortgagee s interest made before judgment by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 507 of 1898 was a subsisting attachment when the mortgagee transfered his interest to Kumarasavami under Exhibit IV in February 1905.

(2.) We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was right. Section 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force shows that the mere passing of the decree in Original Suit No. 507 did not put an end to the attachment before judgment. There was no express abandonment or cancellation of the attachment at any time. The appellant, however, points to the long interval between 1898 and 1905 and to the fact that the plaintiff did cause the property to be re- attached after the decree as indicating that the original attachment had been abandoned by the plaintiff and he relies on the dictum of the Privy Council in Puddomonee Dossee v. Roy Muttooranath Chowdhury 12 B.L.R. 411 at p. 422 : 20 W.R. 133.

(3.) We, however, do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, any intention to abandon the attachment can be inferred.