JAGAT NARAIN, J.—This is a revision application by one Ramzan Khan against an order of the Distt. Judge Jaipur City directing that the assets obtained by the sale of twelve shops in execution of his decree be rateably distributed amongst him and Hiralal, Pyaralal, Manakchand and Motilal respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

2. These twelve shops originally belonged to one Khawas Balabux who died before 1944 leaving a son Lekhraj. Khawas Balabux and Lekhraj constituted a joint Hindu family and the twelve shops which were attached by Ramzan Khan and four of the respondents in their decrees are ancestral properties. It is not disputed that these twelve shops are equally liable to attachment and sale in execution of all these decrees. None of the decree-holders is entitled to get any property over the other decree-holders.

3. Ramzan Khan obtained a decree against Lekh Raj in respect of a liability of his father Bala Bux after the death of Bala Bux. Lekh Raj however died in 1951 leaving a widow Smt. Suraj Bai and a minor son Mahesh Kumar. Ramzan Khan filed his execution application against them.

4. In the other decrees also execution is proceeding against Smt. Suraj Bai. The liabilities on the basis of which these decrees were passed were however incurred by Lekh Raj. Some decrees were passed against Lekh Raj and some were passed against his legal representative Smt. Suraj Bai. The shops were attached in the above decrees on the dates given below:—

(1) Heera Lals decree ... ... ... ... ... 22.12.48

(2) Pyaralals 3 decrees ... ... ... ... ... 11.10.50

(3) Ramzan Khans decrees ... ... ... ... 10.2.54

(4) Moti Lals decree ... ... ... ... 13.7.54

(5) Manak Chands decree ... ... ... ... ... 22.10.54

Ramzan Khans decree was being executed in the court of Civil Judge Jaipur City. The other decrees were being executed in the court of the Distt. Judge Jaipur City. Although execution proceedings in all these decrees were pending simultaneously in the two courts the property was first put to sale in Ramzan Khans decree and was sold for Rs. 16,000/-. On an application made by the other decree-holders under sec. 73 C.P.C. the assets obtained by the sale of the attached property were transferred to the court of Distt. Judge Jaipur City for distribution amongst the various decree-holders who may be entitled to get them in execution of their decrees.

5. Before the learned Distt. Judge Ramzan Khan claimed priority over the other decree-holders on the ground that he was the first to get the property sold in execution of his decree, contending that the other decree-holders were not entitled to rateable distribution under sec. 73 their decrees had been passed on the basis of the liability of a different person. The learned Dist. Judge overruled this contention and ordered rateable distribution. Against that order the present revision application has been filed.

6. On behalf of Ramzan Khan applicant reliance was placed on Jamaiyataram Vs. Umiyashankar (1). On behalf of the other decree-holders the decisions in Hemendra Nath Vs. E. D. Commercial Bank(2) and Ramakrishnan Vs. Viswanathan (3) were relied upon.

7. There is conflict of opinion as to the interpretation of the words "passed against the same judgment-debtor" occurring in sec.73. Judgment-debtor is defined in sec.2(10) as meaning any person against whom a decree has been passed. If a strict literal interpretation was to be put upon the expression it is clear that before sec. 73 could apply there must be complete identity of the judgment-debtor in all the decrees. Such an interpretation would however defeat the very object of the Legislature in enacting this provision.

8. Under sec. 270 and 271 of the Code of 1859, the creditor who first attached the property had a statutory priority to have his claim satisfied in full out of the sale proceeds to the exclusion of other creditors. This superior position assigned to the first attaching creditor naturally led to scrambles and malpractices among attaching creditors and with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document