L MADHO LAL Vs. LDULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two second appeals which arise out of the following facts: The facts will be stated in so far as they are necessary for the disposal of these appeals and no further. A firm Madho Lal Chiranji Lal, which would be described hereafter by the term firm, held a simple decree for money against one Chiranji Lal Ministry, whom it will be convenient to refer hereafter as the Ministry. The money decree was for Rs. 1,378-14-0 and bore No. 21 of 1927. The Ministry had a mortgage decree passed in his favour against one Dulichand, being No. 134 of 1927. The. decree was for a considerable amount, namely, for Rs. 3,402-8-6. The firm in execution of its money decree attached the decree No. 134 of 1927 held by the Ministry. Under the procedure as laid down in the Civil P. C. of 1908, the decree attached should have been executed, and the money thus realized should have been credited towards the decree held by the firm. What however was done was to bring the decree No. 134 of 1927 to sale. It was sold for Rs. 500 and purchased by the firm.

(2.) The Court executing the simple money decree and selling the mortgage decree found some difficulty in confirming the sale for Rs. 500 inasmuch as the decretal amount covered by the mortage decree was over Rs. 3,000. One of the members of the firm, namely, Chiranji Lai, filed an affidavit to assure the Court that the property mortgaged and ordered to be sold by the decree No. 134 of 1927 was not worth more than Rs. 500. The sale was accordingly confirmed and the simple money decree No. 21 of 1927 was executed for the balance. In execution of this simple money decree the Ministry's house was sold. The sale proceeds satisfied the balance of the decree and whatever remained as the surplus was handed over to the Ministry. The firm having purchased the mortgage decree, proceeded; to execute it. The mortgage decree directed the sale of a house belonging-to Dulichand and in due course that, house was brought to sale and a third party purchased it for Rs. 1,525. The-firm having exhausted the mortgaged, property, made an application under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. for the preparation of a personal (money) decree against Dulichand. At this stage the Ministry came forward with an application in which he said that his decree had been sold without any information to him; that it had been sold for a very inadequate amount; that he had received a credit for Rs. 500-only; that the firm had realized Rupees 1,525 by sale of the mortgaged property and that therefore the difference-between Rs. 1,525 and Rs. 500 should be treated as lying with the firm in trust for the Ministry. He accordingly asked that the sum of Rs. 1;025 should be recovered from the firm.

(3.) The learned Munsif, before whom, the two applications were, namely the application of the firm for the passing of a simple money decree against Dulichand and the application of the Ministry for a refund of Rs. 1,025, heard the cases together and came to the conclusion that the firm was not entitled, to a personal decree against Dulichand,. that the firm held the sum of Rupees 1,025 to the credit of the Ministry and. directed that the firm should pay the money within fifteen days and that in default a decree be prepared in favour of the Ministry and against the-firm for the aforesaid amount. The firm being dissatisfied with the two orders passed, went in appeal before the learned District Judge and he came to the conclusion that the Munsif's orders had been passed under Section 151,. Civil P.C. and that therefore no appeal lay to him. The point that we have to decide at the present stage of the case is whether the two appeals, were competent and the learned Subordinate Judge should have heard them. We have to look at the two applications independently.