The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the rights and limitations of the attaching certificate-holder in adjusting and executing the attached decree under Section 19, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XXI, Rule 2, Sub-rule 2, in the context of the Public Demands Recovery Act.

JUDGMENT

Nasim Ali J.

1. On April 19, 1926, the appellant Durga Prosad Chamaria, obtained a decree against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 Radha Kissen Chamaria, Mati Lal Chamaria and Srimati Anar Dei Sethani in Title Suit No. 61 of 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah, for Rs. 8,61,000 with interest at a certain rate up to the date of realization. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 made certain payments from time to time towards the satisfaction of this decree, but these payments did not satisfy the entire decree. On April 1, 1933, the Certificate Officer of Howrah attached this decree u/s 19, Clause 1. Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate filed in Certificate Case No. 1 M of 1933/34 for realization of about Rs. 3,86,000 due as arrears of income tax to respondent No. 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from the appellant. On March 17, 1934, respondent No. 1 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, to whom notice of attachment was given, to realize the amount due under the attached decree by executing the attached decree against respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The appellant was also made a party to this application for execution. On receiving this application, the Subordinate Judge, on May 8, 1934, ordered notice to be issued on the appellant as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to show cause why the execution proceedings should not be carried on. This notice was issued on July 7, 1934, and was served on the appellant as well as on respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on June 27, 1934. On June 21, 1934, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 2, Sub-rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, for recording an adjustment of the attached decree between them and respondent No. 1, and its full satisfaction on the basis of the said adjustment. This petition was registered as Miscellaneous No. 59 of 1931.

2. On June 27, 1934, in pursuance of the notice served on him on that day, the appellant filed an objection to the execution of the attached decree u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code, This objection was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 67 of 1934. After several adjournments both these cases came up for hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge on January 26, 1935. On that day the learned Subordinate Judge framed certain issues after hearing the parties. On January 28, 1935, he allowed the petition of the judgment-debtors under Order XXI, Rule 2, Sub-rule 2 and recorded the adjustment and full satisfaction of the attached decree and dismissed the appellant's objection u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code. Hence these two appeals by the original decree-holder Durga Prosad Cuamaria.

3. M. A. No. 252 of 1935.--This appeal arises out of the petition of the objection filed by the appellant on June 27, 1931, u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code. The material objections are these : (a) That the Secretary of State for India in Council is not entitled to attach and execute the decree as the certificate in execution of which the decree had been attached had been cancelled; (b) That before attachment the appellant had assigned his right, title and interest in the decree to one Keshardeo Chamaria on certain terms, one of these terms being that he would get a refund of Rs. 1,00,000 from the assignee on the happening of certain events.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant on his own admission had no locus standi to maintain this objection as by assignment his interest in the decree had come to an end and the contingencies under which he was entitled to get the refund had not yet arisen and the amount to be refunded to him by the assignee was not a charge on the decree. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf pi the appellant in the course of the hearing of this appeal, abandoned the objection that the certificate in execution of which the decree had been attached had been cancelled and that the Secretary of State for India in Council was not entitled to proceed with the execution. As regards the objection based on the allege