MATHURA DAS Vs. HARI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The firm Narain Das Ganga Saran of Hathras held a decree against the firm Hari Shankar Moti Ram of Aligarh. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Koil, Aligarh, for execution. The Court executing the decree made an order for attachment of the moveable property of the judgment-debtor. The amin attached the property and entrusted the same to Mathura Das, who was appointed a supurdar and executed a tupurdnama on the 30 July 1936. Under the supurdnama he under took to deliver the property whenever and wherever he was called upon by the Court to do so and in the event of his failure to deliver the property to pay its value and the Court could recover the same from his person and property.

(2.) The firm Mithan Lal Mangal Sen of Delhi also held a decree against the firm Hari Shankar Moti Ram of Aligarh. That decree was also transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Koil, Aligarh, for execution. In execution of that decree also certain moveable property of the judgment-debtor was attached and it was entrusted to Lakshmi Kant, who was also appointed a supurdar, presumably on the same terms.

(3.) Both the supurdars failed to deliver the property entrusted to them at the time of sale. The decree-holder in each case released the moveable property and proceeded against other property of the judgment-debtor and eventually part satisfaction of the decree was recorded. When the judgment-debtor could not get back his property, which had been released from attachment, he filed, in each case, an application under Secs.145 and 151, Civil P.C., alleging that the decree-holder had got property worth Rs. 9000 attached and that the decree- holder and the supurdars had misappropriated the property and were liable to pay the value of the property. Both the decree-holder and the supurdars denied these allegations as well as their liability. The supurdars alleged that the attached property all along remained with the judgment-debtor.