Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. DAS GUPTA, GUHA RAY
BASANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE - Appellant
Versus
PANCHU GOPAL DUTTA - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 947 Of 1955
Decided On : JULY 21, 1955
MONEY DECREE - RATABLE DISTRIBUTION - ATTACHMENT BY CERTIFICATE OFFICER - PRIORITY - PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, 1913 - S. 22 - MONEY DECREE - RATABLE DISTRIBUTION - ATTACHMENT BY CERTIFICATE OFFICER - PRIORITY - PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, 1913 - S. 22 - Once the court allows the prayer for rateable distribution, the money ceases to be the judgment-debtors' property and becomes the decree-holders' money. The question of priority of the State's claim does not, therefore, fall to be decided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner obtained four money decrees against the opposite parties and put them into execution. The properties belonging to the judgment-debtors were sold in an execution case started by opposite party No. 6. The petitioner filed an application for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. The court allowed the application for rateable distribution in respect of two execution cases but disallowed it in respect of the other two cases. Before the amount could be determined, a notice of attachment under R. 22 of the Rules under the Public Demands Recovery Act was received from the Certificate Officer withholding payment of the sale proceeds. The court below held that the claim of the State was entitled to priority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that once the court allowed the prayer for rateable distribution, the money ceased to be the judgment-debtors' property and became the decree-holders' money. The question of priority of the State's 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.
Issues: Whether the State's claim for priority under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, S. 22, can be upheld when the money in question has already been declared to be the decree-holders' money by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the court allows the prayer for rateable distribution, the money ceases to be the judgment-debtors' property and becomes the decree-holders' money. The question of priority of the State's claim does not, therefore, fall to be decided.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the court below and directed that the matter be dealt with in accordance with law in pursuance of the court's order dated 18-11-1954 by which it was decided that the present petitioner would get Rs. 6,281/7/- and the opposite party No. 6 would get Rs. 1,833/9/- out of the sale proceeds by way of rateable distribution.
( 2 ) BEFORE, however, this amount could be determined, a letter was received from the Certificate Officer on 3-2-1954 requesting the Court not to make any payment out of these sale proceeds without notice to him. On 24-8-1954 a notice of attachment under R. 22 of the Rules under the Public Demands Recovery Act was received from the Certificate Officer withholding payment of Rs. 8,115/- until further orders of that Court. In spite of this an order was passed by the Court on 18-11-1954 that the present petitioner would get Rs. 6,281/7/- and the opposite party No. 6 would get Rs. 1,833/9/- out of the sale proceeds. These moneys have not, however, been paid out to these decree-holders in accordance with the order but had been ordered to be remitted to the Certificate Officer in compliance with his request, based on the letter of attachment received in the Court on 24-8-1954.
( 3 ) THE Court below has held that as a result of this notice of attachment the money could not be paid to any of the decree-holders and as this attachment order by the Certificate Officer was in respect of a claim payable to the State of West Bengal, he held that the claim was entitled to priority.
( 4 ) WE do not think it can be doubted that if on the date the notice of attachment was received money belonging to the judgment-debtors remained in the hands of the Court, the money would have to go to the payment of the debt due to the State. The question remains whether on that date, namely, 24-8-1054 there was any money of the judgment-debtors in the hands of the Court. It appears to have been argued before the Court below that as soon as the sale was held, the sale proceeds became the money of the decree-holder. This contention was rejected by the court below and this extreme position has not been pressed before us. It has, however, been urged before us that once the Court allowed the prayer for rateable distribution, the money ceased to be the Judgment-debtors' property. 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
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
