9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether money deposited in Court by a tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is liable to attachment in the execution of a decree. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of whether a sum of money deposited in Court by a tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act is subject to attachment in the execution of a decree. The tenant, in this case, deposited money in Court to avoid ejectment by the landlord. The landlord, holding a previous decree against the tenant, sought to attach this amount in execution of the decree. The lower courts allowed the attachment, stating that the tenant had disposing power over the money. The High Court examined the legal principles governing the attachment of property in 'custodia legis' and concluded that property in such custody cannot be attached unless the specific purpose for which it is held has been fulfilled. The Court cited various cases to support this principle, emphasizing that money deposited in Court under statute is not attachable unless the purpose for which it was deposited has been achieved. The judgment further discussed cases where money deposited in Court for various purposes, such as security for costs or pre-emption decrees, was held to be in 'custodia legis' and thus not liable to attachment. The Court highlighted that the legislature, in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, explicitly stated that sums deposited in Court by a pre-emptor are not subject to attachment while in the custody of the Court. The Court also analyzed precedents where money deposited as security for costs of an appeal could be attached but subject to the outcome of the appeal, reinforcing the principle that property in 'custodia legis' is protected from attachment until the specific purpose for which it was deposited is fulfilled. In conclusion, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the lower court's orders, and directed that the money withdrawn by the landlord, which was in 'custodia legis,' should be restored to the Court. The judgment reiterated that property in such custody cannot be withdrawn until the specific purpose for which it was deposited has been fulfilled, thereby protecting it from attachment in the execution of a decree.
|
