Judgment

THAKKAR, J. :- The proposition canvassed by the appellant, namely, that from the point of time that an order for rateable distribution is passed by the executing court the monies in question cease to be the property of the judgment-debtor and become the property of the decree-holder, regardless of whether or not actual payment pursuant to the said order is made, is supported by the decisions of three High Courts namely, Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. As early as in 1922 the Madras High Court in Official Receiver of Tanjore v. M. R. Venkatarama lyer, AIR 1922 Mad 31 has taken the view canvassed by the appellant as is evident from the passage quoted hereunder :-

"It seems to me that from the time of the order of rateable distribution the money must be treated as belonging, not to the judgment-debtor, Nataraja lyer, but to the decree-holder in whose favour the order was passed. Mr. of Devadoss for appellant contended that the effect of a rateable distribution order is merely to allocate the money to the different suits without affecting its ownership. The latter, he says, still rests in the judgment-debtor by the sale of whose property it was allocated. I do not think this is so. The section does not speak of distribution to the credit of the different decrees, but of distribution among the decree-holders. The latter are entitled to draw it out at will; and the judgment-debtor most certainly is not. I think the money in this case must be treated as the property of the decree-holder, the present respondent and that the Official Receiver could no more recover it from Court than he could recover from the respondent if it had actually been paid out to him by court. Mr. Devadoss eventually admitted that he could not recover the money in the circumstances of the present case if it had passed into respondents possession. I would dismiss the appeal with costs."

2. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has expressed the same view in Murli Tahilram v. T. Asoomal & Co. AIR 1955 Cal 423 wherein it is observed : -

"But where a private citizen has sued another to judgment and has in fact got by an order of Court a Receiver appointed of his goods and such goods have been sold by the Receiver under orders of the Court and where there has been a prior direction in the Courts order to pay the sale proceeds to the private judgment-creditor a subsequent claim by the State for arrears of sales-tax cannot defeat the judgment-creditor or deprive him of the fruits of his decree which is regarded as property."

And the same view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Basanta Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Panchu Gopal Dutta, AIR 1956 Cal 23, wherein the Court has made recourse to the following reasoning to support the proposition :

"This contention, we think, should prevail. The order allowing the application for rateable distribution that was passed on 2-12-1953 should, we think, be reasonably read as deciding that the decree-holders had title to the money. What remained to be done was the ascertainment of the exact amount which each decree-holder was entitled to and payment of the same. The decision as regards title had already been made and with the decision that the money was the decree-holders money, the position, in our opinion, was that it could no longer be considered in law to be the judgment-debtors money. The question of priority of the States claim does not, therefore, fall to be decided. On the date the letter of attachment of the Certificate Officer was received, there was no money belonging to the judgment-debtors in the hands of the Court."

The High Court of Allahabad which has differed from the aforesaid High Courts by the judgment under appeal has proceeded on the assumption that the High Court of Bombay has taken a contrary view in Income-tax Officer, Ward C, Sangli v. Chandanbai Balaram Doshi, AIR 1957 Bom 91. We are afraid, the principle enunciated by the High Court of Bombay in the said case has bee