JAGANNATH PRASAD Vs. SHEO NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has no force. The only point to be decided is whether the order of the Collector dated 4 November 1924 operated to remove the attachment which had been validly made by an order of the civil Court. It appears that a decree was obtained by the respondent Sheonarain against one Ram Lal who died joint with the appellant Jagannath. In the lifetime of Ram Lal, an attachment of his share of the property had been obtained by Sheonarain. After attachment the decree was sent, to the Collector for execution by the Munsiff. While the matter was still pending before the Collector, Ram Lal died. The Collector on 22 October, 1924, was informed by the Tahsildar that Ram Lal was dead and thereupon he directed that the decree-holder should be informed of the fact and the case should be taken on 4 November 1924. On that date the Collector passed the following order: The judgment debtor is dead. The decree-holder is absent. It is ordered that the case be removed from the list of pending cases (Kharij ho) and the papers be filed (dakhil daftar ho) and that the papers received from the civil Court be returned to the same.

(2.) On the death of Ram Lal the decree-holder applied to the civil Court, which was the only Court before which an application for bringing on the record the legal representative of the judgment-debtor could be made, to bring Jagannath on the record. Jagannath having been duly placed on the record, the decree-holder applied to the civil Court for the papers being again sent to the Collector, so that the latter might proceed with the execution of the decree. The civil Court, however, thought that a fresh application asking for attachment was necessary. Accordingly a new application was put in on 9 December 1924. When a fresh proceeding purporting to be a new attachment was taken, Jagannath came in with the objection that he was the sole owner of the property attached, and whatever interest Ram Lal possessed in the property had disappeared on the principle of survivorship of the Hindu Law. This raised the question whether the attachment, which had been effected on 22 April, 1924, in the lifetime of Ram Lal, was still subsisting.

(3.) The first Court upheld the objection of Jagannath and dismissed the application for execution. The lower appellate Court held that although the family of Jagannath and Ram Lal was joint the original attachment held good. That view has been accepted by a learned Judge of this Court and hence this Letters Patent appeal. The only point that was argued before the learned Judge of this Court was that the order of the Collector dated 4 November 1924, was, in effect an order dismissing an execution application for default of the decree-holder, and that therefore the order operated to release the attachment.