CHAMPYIL KOPPAN Vs. KOLASSERI KELAPPAN NAMBIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent attached the suit property as the property of his judgment-debtor. A third party put in a claim that the property was his and succeeded. THE judgment-debtor sued to set aside the settlement by virtue of which the claimant had succeeded in his claim and for possession and obtained a decree. This was not a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code, which confers a right of suit only on the party against whom an order has been made rejecting his claim or his objection to another s claim. THE person who objects to a claim is the attaching decree-holder. He (the judgment-debtor) then sold the suit property to the appellant. THE respondent then again attached the property and the appellant put in a claim petition, and having failed in it, brought the present suit. It is practically admitted that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Arasayee Ammal v. Sokhalinga Mudali 33 Ind. Cas. 84 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 287 : 3 L.W. 289. Nor can we agree with Mr. Menon s contention that the first attachment was revived by the result of the judgment-debtor s suit above referred to.

(2.) WE must allow the appeal, reverse the decrees of the lower Courts and give the plaintiff a decree as prayed, with costs throughout.