The Chief Justice.-The appeal relates to a sum of Rs. 2,180-0-10 deposited in Court to the credit of O.S. No. 64 of 1936 on the file of the District Court of Nellore; originally it was credited to O.S. No. 28 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court; by virtue of various proceedings it was transferred to the credit of other suits and is now credited as previously stated. Throughout its various transfers its nature and the parties entitled to it have not altered.

O.S. No. 28 of 1922 was a mortgage suit, the hypotheca being 67 acres 53 cents of land, of which 53 acres 62 cents were cultivated. In respect of Fasli year 1338 the total proceeds from the crops raised on the cultivated portion of the hypotheca were paid into Court; this was some time after the year 1928; out of those proceeds the mortgagee-decree-holders have been paid all the sums to which they were entitled and, it is beyond doubt, the cultivators of the 53 acres 62 cents are entitled to the balance, namely, the above sum of Rs. 2,180-0-10, to which the mortgagees assert no claim. The cultivators form three groups of persons: respondents 1 to 3, the petitioners in the Court below, they cultivated 18 acres 12 cents of the total cultivation of 53 acres 62 cents; the appellants, respondents 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 20 and 22 to 25 in the Court below, they cultivated 5/6ths of the remaining 35 acres 50 cents of the total cultivation; and respondents Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12, respondents 17, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 in the lower Court (hereinafter called “the other respondents”), they cultivated the remaining 1/6th of the 35 acres 50 cents. All other parties in the Court below and in this appeal, can be ignored.

By application E.A. No. 77 of 1943 in O.S. No. 64 of 1946, out of which this appeal arises, respondents 1 to 3 sought an order of Court that, out of the sum of Rs. 2,180-0-10, the amount of Rs. 1,600 be paid to them and that the balance of Rs. 580-0-10 be retained to meet any liability in O.S. No. 176 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court, Nellore, in which suit the decree-holder had obtained an order for attachment of the money in Court to the extent of Rs. 580-0-10.

The learned District Judge, against whose decision this appeal is preferred, by his order directed that: the respondents 1 to 3 be permitted to withdraw one half of the available sum without security, namely, if the attachment had been raised, one half of Rs. 2,180-0-10; if it had not been raised, then, one half of Rs. 1,600; in regard to the other moiety, respondents 1-3 could withdraw it upon furnishing security and undertaking to make good the amount in the event of the contesting respondents (the appellants and the other respondents in this appeal) being entitled to claim that moiety; as regards the appellants and the other respondents, they were referred to appropriate proceedings to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 64 of 1936 (to which reference hereafter will be made). It was in respect of such potential proceedings that the order for security was made regarding one moiety of the available money in Court if withdrawn by respondents 1-3.

The appellants challenge the correctness of the learned District Judge’s order in the following ways:

1. The decree in O.S. No. 64 of 1936 is not binding upon them, they are entitled to treat it as a nullity and it should have been ignored by the learned Judge.

2. In O.S. No. 176 of 1926 respondents 1-3 are the judgment-debtors, the decree is not against the appellants or the other respondents, and the amount of the attachment of Rs. 580-0-10 should have been deducted from the sum to which respondents 1-3 are entitled out of the money in Court and should not be deducted from the total sum of Rs. 2,180-0-10.

3. In any event respondents 1-3 having cultivated only 18 acres 12 cents of the 53 acres 62 cents, they are not entitled to one half of the whole cultivation proceeds but only to the proportion represented by their cultivation, namely, Rs. 740

Click Here to Read the rest of this document