NOOR MAHOMED MOHIDEEN PILLAI TARAGAN Vs. PECHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I must refuse to allow the appellants to raise at this stage the contention that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to attach because of some infirmity in the notice issued on 17th February, 1932. That plea has never yet been advanced and it is too late to advance it now.

(2.) The other question is whether any attachment was in fact validly effected on 1 March, 1932. From the learned District Munsif's judgment it does not appear that this question was discussed before him. But it was discussed before the learned Subordinate Judge and it is important. Ex. A does not purport to be an order for the attachment of anything. It is apparently part of Form 5, Appendix F of the Civil P. C., translated into Tamil. Attachment of immovable property can only be made by means of prohibitory orders of which Form 24, Appendix E of the Civil P. C. is a specimen. Were any such prohibitory orders ever issued in this case? The learned Subordinate Judge says they were, but that was only what he presumed. The learned advocate for appellants says they were not: the learned advocate for respondent says they were. This was a matter of evidence and not for mere presumption.

(3.) A finding will be called for from the Court of the District Munsif of Tenkasi on the question "Was the attachment said to have been effected on 1 March, 1932, made by means of prohibitory orders (Order 21, Rule 54 of the Civil P. C.)?".