The amount deposited in court was liable for attachment under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as the judgment debtor had a disposing power over it, which he could exercise for his own benefit. However, the attachment would be subject to the result of the suit in which the amount had been deposited.

VISWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) JUDGMENT debtor is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are the following :

( 2 ) A money decree was passed against the appellant and another person in O. S. 12 of 1957 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Eluru for Rs. 1,716. 00 in favour of the first respondent and the predecessor in interest of the respondents 2 and

( 3 ) THE decree-holders filed E. P. 292 of 1959 on 29-10-1959, for attachment of the movable properties. The movable were attached. In E. A. 442/70 by an order dated 18-4-1960 movables were directed to be sold without any reference to the upset price. But on 30-6-1960 E. P. 292 of 1959 was dismissed. Later on the other decree-holder i. e. , the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 and 3 died. Thereupon respondents 1 to 3 filed E. P. 160 of 1963 on 24-6-1963 for sale of the attached movable properties. Notice to the judgment debtor was ordered but for non-payment of batta the said E. P. was dismissed on 12-8-1963. 3. Thereafter the decree-holders filed on 31-5-1966 E. A. 409 of 1966 seeking transfer of the decree to the District Munsifs Court, Chintalapudi for purposes of execution. On 6-7-1966 transfer was ordered and the decree was transmitted to the District Munsifs Court, Chintalapudi. In that Court the decree-holders filed E. P. 44 of 1968 on 20-12-1967. In that E. P. the movables were sold and a part satisfaction for Rs. 423. 00 was recorded and that E. P. was closed on 13-5-1969. Thereafter the decree holders filed E. P. 32 of 1969 in the District Munsifs Court, Chintalapudi for attachment of the amount lying in deposit in O. S. 15 of 1969 on the file of Sub-Court, Eluru as belonging to the appellant-judgment debtor therein.

( 4 ) THE appellant herein resisted the said E. P. on the following grounds : (1) The E. P. itself has become barred by limitation (2) without production of succession certificate the E. P. was not maintainable and (3) the amount lying to the credit of O. S. 15 of 1969 on the file of the Sub-Court , Eluru is not liable to be attached.

( 5 ) THE learned District Munsif, Chintalapudi overruled the objection No. 3 which was pressed before him. He held that the said amount was deposited in O. S. 15 of 1969 not by virtue of any direction given by the Court to the appellant herein to make such a deposit, nor was it a condition precedent for the institution or prosecution of the suit to have such a deposit. Moreover the said suit was dismissed and an appeal was pending against it. The judgment-debtor appellant herein cannot say that his funds are locked up in some other suit and thereby evade payment of the decree obtained by the respondent herein. He therefore held that the said amount can be attached. The attachment was therefore made absolute by an order dated 4/02/1970.

( 6 ) THE judgment debtor thereupon preferred an appeal A. S. 17 of 1970 before the District Judge, West Godavary at Eluru. The learned appellate Judge also has negatived the three contentions raised by the appellant herein. The lower appellate Court held that the present E. P. is not barred by limitation as the application for transfer of the decree to the District Munsifs Court, Chintalapudi would operate as a step-in-aid of the execution, that the present E. P. can be filed even without the production of succession certificate and that the amount that was deposited by the appellant herein in O. S. 15/69 was not impressed with the character of any trust in favour of his proposed vendor and it was therefore attachable. Having negatived all the three contentions the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 26/08/1970.

( 7 ) IN this second appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor Sri Mangachary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the very same three contentions before me. I will deal with them seraitim. Regarding the first contention that the present E. P. is barred by limitation he has conceded that if the trans

Click Here to Read the rest of this document