The main legal principle established in the judgment is that for rateable distribution to occur under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the assets must be received by the executing Court, and a formal order transferring the amount to the credit of the decree under execution is necessary.

1. This and the connected appeals are filed against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly passed in several proceedings which were taken to enforce the rights of various decree-holders and the Imperial Bank of India, the appellant, and raise a common question whether certain decree-holders can obtain rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the amounts deposited in O.S. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the lower Court which related to the succession to the Uthumalai estate. That estate was originally held by one Navaneethakrishna and on his death his adoptive mother Rani Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar succeeded to the estate. She died in 1921 and disputes arose as to the succession to the zamindari. There were three claimants. One claimed to be the fathers sisters son of the last male holder and filed O.S. No. 1 of 1922 on the file of the lower Court. The second claimant was one Marudappa Tevar who claimed that he was adopted by the deceased Rani Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar and he filed O.S. No. 2 of 1922. Lastly, one Subbayya Tevar as the maternal uncle of the last male owner filed O.S. No. 3 of 1922 in the same Court. Marudappa Tevar who claimed by adoption also put forward an alternative claim under a will executed by Rani Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar. The District Judge upheld the claim of Subbayya Tevar as the maternal uncle of the last male owner. He negatived the adoption of Marudappa Tevar and also the claim under the will put forward by him. Thus O.S. No. 3 of 1922 was decreed and the other suits were dismissed. There were appeals to the High Court in all the suits. The claim of Subbayya Tevar as the maternal uncle was upheld. Marudappas adoption was negatived but he was held entitled to the bequests under Rani Meenakshi Sundara Nachiars will, the will being held to be valid and operative. Further appeals were taken to the Judicial Committee and the decision of the High Court was confirmed. (Vide Bala Subramania v. Subbayya AIR1939Mad168 )

2. Subbayya Tevar, the claimant who succeeded in all the Courts, was in need of finance for the conduct of the litigation. One Subramania Chetti undertook to finance him and by April, 1929, had advanced very large sums of money. By that time the District Courts judgment had been delivered and appeals had been filed in the High Court. It was expected that the unsuccessful parties would apply for stay of execution of the decree of the lower Court which directed delivery to the successful party of possession of the estate and the moneys which had been collected by the receiver appointed during the pendency of the litigation in the trial Court. There was an agreement, Ex. I, between Subramania Chetti the financier and Subbayya Tevar by which the amount advanced by Subramania Chettiar till then was settled at nine lakhs of rupees. It was provided inter alia that this sum of nine lakhs should not carry interest from the 12th February, 1929, that Subramania Chetti should be entitled to the income from the entire pannai (private) lands in the zamindari as and from Fasli 1339 except to a small extent which was negligible, that the Chetti was entitled to draw the monies deposited in Court, if necessary, by giving security, and that the money when drawn should appropriated towards the discharge of the amount of nine lakhs. It was also provided that the Chettiar should have a charge over the Zamindari and its properties except certain temples and their properties of which the zamindar was the dharmakartha.

3. As expected, applications were filed for stay of execution of the decree in various suits and the applications were all heard together by the High Court which passed a common order on the 8th August, 1-929. In regard to the moneys then in deposit in the District Court, it was ordered that Subramania Chettiar may, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Court, draw the whole or any portion from time to time. As regards delivery of possessio