A garnishee is a person who is bound to pay certain amount to the defendant in a proceeding or a person who is in possession of certain amounts belonging to the defendant.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. These appeals are against the common order passed by the learned judge on the Original Side pending a suit on his file by which an attachment has been directed of an amount kept in deposit under T.D.R. Receipt Nos. 594792 and 594793 dated 11-7-1994 with the plaintiff and an injunction is granted restraining the defendants from withdrawing the said amount from the said bank.

2. The suit is filed by the first respondent in these appeals on an equitable mortage for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,13,67,591/- with interest and in default of payment, direction to sell the mortgage properties set out in Schedules I and II to the plaint. The first defendant is the mortagagor while defendants 2 to 4 are the guarantors. The plaintiff filed Original Application No. 629 of 1995 and Application No. 3064 of 1995, the former for an injunction restraining the garnishee-fifth respondent therein from withdrawing the amounts due under the two T.D.R. receipts each for Rs. 15,00,000/- standing in his name with the applicant bank till the disposal of the suit and the latter for attachment before judgment of the said two term deposits. Though the fifth respondent in the application was not made a party to the suit, in the affidavit filed in support of the applications it is alleged that two deposits were made under T.D.R. Nos. 594792 and 594793 in the name of the fifth respondent, an advocate, for Rs. 15,00,000/- each. It is alleged that the defendants in their pursuit to pay off the loans to begin with, had by their letters dated 8-7-1994 and 9-7-1994 deposited the said amount for a period of 120 days initially in the name of the fifth respondent. The affidavit proceeded as if the amount belonged to the mortgagor and that it is not the money of the fifth respondent. It is expressly stated in the affidavit that the mortgagor had admitted by written correspondence that the money belonged to the mortgagor and not to the fifth respondent. It is also alleged that the defendants were closing down their business and secreting all the assets and profits and further encumbering the properties. After service of notice, the Director of the first defendant filed a counter-affidavit in which it was stated that the sum was kept in deposit as a ‘no lien’ deposit with the plaintiff bank on the specific condition, understanding and agreement that it would be appropriated by the bank only in the event of the ban k accepting the compromise proposal submitted by the mortgagor. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that third parties had advanced monies on condition of confidentiality and in order to safeguard their position, the money was deposited in the name of the legal adviser of the first defendant, who is sought to be made out as the garnishee. In short, the contention of the defendants was that the fifth respondent was not a garnishee and the amount did not belong to the mortgagor.

3. The plaintiff had also filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the property and take an inventory in the office premises of the defendants and the Commissioner had submitted an interim report that he could not execute the warrant. He had stated in the report that he could not find any office of the first respondent at the address given by the plaintiff. He had also mentioned in the report that when he attempted to serve notice on the third defendant, she refused to receive the same. The report of the Commissioner does not mention the date or place on which such notice was attempted to be served by him.

4. The learned judge has taken the view that the amount belongs to the first defendant mortagagor though it is deposited in the name of the fifth respondent and, is, therefore, liable to be attached. For that purpose, the learned judge has placed reliance on a letter dated 14-9-1994 written by the first defendant to the plaintiff. In that letter, the following passages occur and they have been extracted by the learned judge in h