The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of receipt of assets by the court is crucial in determining rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court clarified that the assets were received by the court when the whole purchase money was deposited in court by the purchaser, and only those decree-holders who had applied for execution before the money was deposited in court could claim rateable share in the sale proceeds.

1. The assignee-decree-holder in O.S. No. 20 of 1115 of the Trichur District Court is the revision petitioner. The revision petition is from an order in execution allowing rateable distribution under section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree in this case was obtained against one Govinda Menon, who died and whose legal representatives are counter-petitioners 2 to 14. The first counter-petitioner had obtained a decree against Govinda Menon in O.S.No.47 of 1939 of the District Munsiff's Court of Palghat. The assignee-decree-holder in O.S. No. 20 of 1115 attached the properties of Govinda Menon and brought them to sale. The sale took place on 28-6-1124 and the properties were purchased by one Sadasiva Iyer for Rs. 1700/-. He deposited the whole purchase money in court on the date of sale. The decree-holder in another decree obtained against Govinda Menon, namely O.S. No.62 of 1112 of the Anjikaimal District Court, had applied for execution of his decree before the date of the sale in O.S. 20/15. He also put in a petition on 26-7-1124 for setting aside the sale. That petition was, however, dismissed on 17-8-1124. The first counter-petitioner filed an execution petition in the Trichur District Court on 8-7-1124 after getting his decree transferred to that court in which he claimed rateable distribution of the assets realised by the auction sale, in O.S. No. 20 of 1115. He also put in a petition on 17-8-1124 for setting aside the auction sale. That petition is still pending. The petition for rateable distribution was opposed by the assignee-decree-holder in O. S.No.20 of 1115 on the ground that it was presented after the receipt of assets by the Court. This contention was repelled by the learned District Judge who held that the decree-holder in O.S. No. 47 of 1939 was entitled to share in the distribution of the assets. On the authority of a Single Bench decision of the judicial Commissioner's Court of Peshawar in Makhan Singh v. Moti Ram (AIR 1936 Peshawar 164) the learned judge held that the assets could be deemed to have been received by the court only on the loth day after the auction sale since the auction purchaser had time till then to deposit 75 per cent of the purchase money after depositing 25 per cent on the date of sale. It was also held in that case that until after the sale was confirmed it could not be said that the assets were received by the court. This view also was accepted by the learned District Judge.

2. The question for consideration in the revision petition is whether in this case the assets can be said to have been received by the court before the first counter-petitioner applied for execution of his decree in the Trichur District Court. Section 73 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:

"Where assets are held by a court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the court for the execution of decree for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons."

In the Code of 1882 the words used were "prior to the realisation" while in the new Code they were substituted by the words "before the receipt" The words "realisation" was interpreted in different manner by different courts and it was with a view to make the meaning clear that the word "receipt" was substituted for the word "realisation". What we have to decide in this case is whether the assets can be said to have been received by the court when the auction-purchaser deposited in court the whole purchase money.

3. One of the reasons given by the learned District Judge for holding that the assets cannot be held to have been received by the court when the purchase money was deposited by the auction-purchaser is that the auction-purchaser was bound to deposit only 25 per cent of the purchase money on the date of sale and that