RADHA MOHAN Vs. MTWAHIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matters before us are first a rule directed against an order of the Munsif allowing the decree-holder, named Radha Mohan, rateable distribution of assets and secondly, an appeal from the order of the District Judge confirming the decision of the Munsif to the effect that a certain attachment was not subsisting and that the execution case should be dismissed on part satisfaction. To understand the matters it is necessary to state the facts. The decree-holder Radha Mohan, who in this case appears in person and has argued his case in great detail, obtained a decree and took out certain execution proceedings which were known in this case as Execution Case No. 1472 of 1930.

(2.) Sometime after the execution proceedings, which I have just mentioned, had been started the same Radha Mohan obtained another decree against the same judgment-debtor in the Court of the Munsif of Allahabad. This was on 15 April 1931. Other execution proceedings were taken out known as Execution Case No. 578 of 1931. In the meantime on 17 December 1930, in pursuance of Execution Case No. 1472 a house, the property of the judgment-debtor, situate on the club road, Gaya, was attached. There were certain proceedings in the Execution Case No. 1472 which I shall hereinafter refer to as the first execution case which it is unnecessary to refer to in detail.

(3.) The sale of the house attached was fixed for 16 May 1931. In the meantime two important events happened. One was as early as 29 January 1931, that is, about a little over a month after the house in Gaya had been attached. The same house was sold to Mt. Wahidan, petitioner in the application in revision and respondent in the appeal before us. Again just prior to the date which was fixed for the sale the decree-holder applied for rateable distribution of the assets in Court resulting from the first execution case. This was on 11 May 1931. An order was made on this application of the 11 May that the matter would be considered when the assets came into the hands of the Court. It is to be noted that, first, the sale to the lady of the attached property was subsequent to the attachment and, secondly, the application for rateable distribution was made also subsequent to the attachment, that is to say, some five months afterwards on 11 May 1931. On the 13th May, some three days before the date of the sale, the lady by her advocate petitioned the Court to accept the decretal amount and costs in the first execution case and to have the property released from attachment. She stated that she had purchased the property and for that reason she desired to deposit the sum named.