TARAK NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. SANAT KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case out of which these appeals arise are these: One Himadri had a certain share in a certain taluk. He was involved in debt and there were a number of decrees out against him. On 14 June 1921 in execution of a money decree his share in the taluk was sold. He then applied on 14 July 1921 to have the sale set aside on depositing the decretal amount and this was allowed on 18 July 1921. It will appear that the money to do this was supplied by the plaintiff in the present suit, Babu Tarak Nath Mukherji. On 8 July Himadri had entered into an agreement to sell to Mukherji his interest in the taluk and Mukherji paid him in advance some Rs. 26,000 odd of the purchase money and it was this money which was used to satisfy the decretal amount of the decree I have already referred to.

(2.) One Kali Nath Bose had meanwhile obtained another decree against Himadri and in execution of the decree attached the same property on 25 September 1921.

(3.) On 16 September 1921 two persons Niladri and Sanat had instituted money suits against Himadri and attached the property before judgment in one suit on 10 August 1921 and in the other on 3 September 1921. On 29 November 1921 the agreement for sale I have already referred was completed and the property sold to Mukherji. The balance of the purchase money Rs. 5,386 odd was paid some time before this date. Mukherji then put in objection to the three attachments under Order 21, Rule 58 but was unsucessful. Mukherji deposited the decretal amount in Kali Nath Bose's case. He has brought three suits. One against Kali Nath Bose asking for a declaration that the property was not liable to be sold in execution of Kali Nath's decree and asking for a refund of the purchase money.