Jackson, J.

1. Petitioner is a davasthanam, and respondent is a Chetti. The devasthanam attached its judgment-debtors property in execution of a decree in the District Court, Madura, in November 1924.

2. The Chetti had attached the same property, and brought it to sale in execution of a decree in the Sub-Court, Dindigul. Out of the sale proceeds he satisfied his decree.

3. The davasthanam petitioned the District Judge to order restitution of the amount taken by the Chetti in order that there might be rate-able distribution. The District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and hence this petition.

4. Part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner has been directed towards showing that if the Sub Court held assets in consequence of the Chettis sale, such assets would be available for rateable distribution by the District Court. So much the respondent is prepared to concede, and authority for the proposition will be found in Periya Karupan v. Soma Sundaram Chetti A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 67. it is not the respondents case that the sale by the Sub-Court prevails against the attachment by the District Court. He merely contends that when the money has been paid out