9911796707
TMI Blog1937 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Court of Wards, Gonda, but after some correspondence between the Special Mafiager and the Court, the money was sent by the Court of Wards to the Court of the Munsif on 16th September 1936. On 17th September 1936 the judgment-debtor made an application to the Collector under the Encumbered Estates Act of 1934 and on 19th September 1936 he put in an application in the Court of the Munsif saying that he had made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act and asking the Court not to pay the money received from the Court of Wards to the decree-holder. This application was presumably made with a view to ask the Court to give effect to the provisions of Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act, but the Court was of opinion that, that sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent on this point but am unable to hold that the present appeal is barred by Sections 45 to 47, Encumbered Estates Act. No doubt the learned Munsif who rejected the judgment-debtor's application of 19th September 1936 happens to be a Special Judge for the purposes of the Encumbered Estates Act but the order passed in the present case cannot be said to have been passed by him as a Special Judge. It was clearly passed by him in his ordinary jurisdiction as a Munsif under Section 47, Civil P.C. It appears that this order was passed by him on 28th September 1936 and that on that very date, the Collector passed an order under Section 6, Encumbered Estates Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this sub-section relating to stay of proceedings is not relevant for purposes of this case and it is only the second portion declaring attachments and other execution processes as null and void with which we are concerned. The crux of the question is whether when the Collector passed an order under Section 6 of the Act in this case on 28th September 1936 the attachment of the money made by the decree-holder was in force or not. In my opinion it certainly was. It was argued that after the money was received in Court on 16th September 1936 the attachment ceased to exist and was no longer in force. I cannot accede to this argument. No doubt the attachment was completed when the money was sent by the Court of Wards to the Court, but to say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
