The proceeds of the sale of the judgment-debtor's property are not held in trust for the judgment-creditors, but continue to belong to the judgment-debtor until appropriated by order of the Court to the claim of the creditor or creditors.

1. These two Revision Applications raise common questions. Decrees for money were passed against one Bharamappa Jinappa Shirguppe in two suits. The decree-holder in one suit was Sushilabai wife of Annappa Mithare and the decree-holder in the other was Chandanbai wife of Balaram Doshi. Chandanbai filed Darkhast No. 201/54 for execution of her decree and Sushilabai filed Darkhast No 100/54 for execution of her decree. In Darkhast No. 201/54 filed by Chandanbai moveable property belonging to Bharamappa was attached. The property was sold on 29th November 1954. Sushilabai in her Darkhast No. 100/54 got attached and sold some immovable property of Bharamappa. The immoveable property was sold on 22nd October 1954, and the sale was confirmed on 27th November 1954. The total amount realised by sale of the moveable and immoveable property in the two Darkhasts exceeded Rs. 3,000. Bharamappa was liable to pay to the income-tax department an aggregate amount of Rs. 26,586-5-0 as tax and penalty due by him. He was also liable to pay to the sales tax department Rs. 5,471-10-0 as sales tax. On 8th November 1954, the Sales Tax Officer, Sangli, applied under Section 17 of the Bales Tax Act, 1953, to the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, for recovery Of Rs. 5,392-15-0 due by Bharamappa as sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer also applied on 3rd December 1954, for recovery of Rs. 81-11-0. The Sales Tax Officer moved the learned Judge 1 for an order that the amounts received in execution be paid over to him. The Income-tax Officer applied on 11th December 1954, for payment to him of the amount lying in Court in part satisfaction of a claim for Rs. 22,686-6-0. He again applied on 29th December for payment of the amount in satisfaction of a further claim for Rs. 3,900. The Sales Tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer claimed priority for the amounts due to their respective departments over the ordinary creditors. The learned Judge of the executing Court rejected the applications filed by the Sales Tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer. In the view of the learned trial Judge, the applications filed by the Sales Tax Officer, were not maintain, able because the Sales Tax Officer was incompetent to make a demand under Section 17 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 from the Civil Court. He also held that auction sale of immoveable property having been held before the date on which the applications were submitted by the Sales Tax Officer the proceeds of the sale of immoveable property received by the Court must be deemed to belong to the execution creditors and not to the debtor Bharamappa, and the Sales Tax Officer had no right to recover the proceeds of the sale. He then held that even though the sale of moveables took place after the first application was submitted by the Sales Tax Officer, at the date when the application was submitted, the Court did not hold money on account of judgment-debtor and after the moveables were sold the proceeds belonged to the creditors and not to the judgment-debtor. In the view of the learned trial Judge, when property belonging to a judgment-debtor is sold in execution of a money decree, the proceeds received by the Court are held by the Court In trust for the creditors and the judgment-debtor has no interest therein. In arriving at that conclusion, the learned trial Judge followed a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secretary of State, AIR 1935 Lah 319 (2) (A). The learned Judge preferred the View taken by the Lahore High Court to the view taken by the Madras High Court in the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madras v. Vendatam, ILR 59 Mad 428: (AIR 1936 Mad 132) (B). The learned trial Judge did not consider the claim made by the Income-tax Officer, because, in his view, if the claim of the Sales Tax Officer succeeded, it being for an amount in excess of the amount realised in execution proceedings, the entire amount must be paid over to the Sales Tax Off