1937 (4) TMI 22 - DSC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Civil Judge
- Application for attachment of money
- Objections raised by Special Manager of Court of Wards
- Application under Encumbered Estates Act
- Rejection of judgment-debtor's prayer
- Preliminary objection raised by respondent
- Interpretation of Sections 45, 46, and 47 of Encumbered Estates Act
- Bar to maintainability of second appeal
- Merits of the appeal based on Section 7(1) of Encumbered Estates Act

Analysis:
The judgment-debtor filed an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, which was a subsequent appeal against the order of the Munsif, regarding the attachment of money held by the Court of Wards. The respondent had a money decree against the appellant, leading to the application for attachment. Objections were raised by the Special Manager of the Court of Wards, but the money was eventually sent to the Munsif's Court. The judgment-debtor then made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act, seeking to prevent the payment of money to the decree-holder. Both the Munsif and the Civil Judge rejected the judgment-debtor's plea, resulting in the second appeal. A preliminary objection was raised citing Sections 45, 46, and 47 of the Encumbered Estates Act, arguing that the appeal was not maintainable due to the finality of decisions under Section 45(5) and the restrictions under Section 47.

However, the court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Munsif in this case and concluded that the order in question was not passed by him as a Special Judge under the Encumbered Estates Act but in his ordinary capacity as a Munsif under the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the restrictions of the Encumbered Estates Act did not apply to the order in question, allowing the second appeal to proceed. Moving to the merits, the court examined Section 7(1) of the Encumbered Estates Act, which states the consequences of an order passed by the Collector under Section 6. The court focused on the nullification of attachments and execution processes, determining that the attachment of the money in this case was still in force when the Collector passed his order under Section 6. Consequently, the attachment became null and void under Section 7(1), leading to the decree in favor of the judgment-debtor, with costs, and overturning the lower courts' orders.