1936 (8) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filing.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at Ellichpur.
3. Rateable distribution of sale proceeds among multiple decree holders.
4. Applicability of Sections 63 and 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Continuation of attachment after conversion of property to money.
6. Availability of assets for rateable distribution.
7. Necessity of prior attachment for rateable distribution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Appeal Filing:
The plaintiff contended that the appeal filed by the respondents was beyond time. The appeal was initially filed within time on January 29, 1934, before the Additional District Judge at Amraoti but was later transferred to the Additional District Judge at Ellichpur, where it was taken up on February 8, 1934, by which time it was beyond the prescribed period.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at Ellichpur:
The court examined whether the Additional District Judge at Ellichpur constituted a separate court or was part of the District Court at Amraoti. The judgment clarified that under the Central Provinces Courts Act of 1917, there is only one District Court in each Civil District, and Additional Judges are part of this District Court, not separate entities. Hence, the appeal was rightly admitted initially.

3. Rateable Distribution of Sale Proceeds:
The case involved multiple decree holders, including the appellant and the respondents, who had obtained decrees against the same judgment-debtor. The respondents claimed a right to rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of the judgment-debtor's fields, which were attached and sold for arrears of land revenue.

4. Applicability of Sections 63 and 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Section 63 states that the court of the highest grade shall receive or realize the property under attachment and determine any claims thereto. Section 73 deals with rateable distribution among decree holders. The court held that these sections must be read together, and the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, was the appropriate court to decide on the claims for rateable distribution.

5. Continuation of Attachment After Conversion of Property to Money:
The court addressed whether the attachment of the property by the sixth defendant, Nathusa, continued after the property was converted into money through a sale. It was held that the attachment continued and fastened onto the money, entitling Nathusa to rateable distribution. The court referenced the doctrine of the right to follow, extending it beyond fiduciary relationships to prevent unjust enrichment.

6. Availability of Assets for Rateable Distribution:
The court rejected the argument that the assets were not available for rateable distribution because they were not realized "by sale or otherwise in execution of a decree." It was held that the term "assets" in Section 73 is not confined in this manner, and the money was available for rateable distribution.

7. Necessity of Prior Attachment for Rateable Distribution:
The court clarified that prior attachment is not necessary for rateable distribution under Section 73. All that is required is an application for execution before the assets are received by the court. The respondents had made such applications, and thus, they were entitled to rateable distribution.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the lower Appellate Court's decision for rateable distribution among the decree holders. The court also awarded costs to Nathusa, the only respondent who appeared in the appeal.