JUDGMENT

John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J. - The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are these. One Dharam Singh obtained a decree against Brij Bhukan Lal and others oh the 21st September 1895. That was a decree for sale upon a mortgage. After the sale of the mortgaged property the decree-holder obtained, on the 10th February, 1900, a decree u/s 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. In execution of this decree he caused a decree held by Brij Bhukan Lal and ors. against one Chajmal Das, dated the 9th September, 1892, to be attached. It is common ground-that the decree last mentioned was passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, and was not in course of execution at the time when it was attached. It is also admitted that Dharam Singh by virtue of the attachment did not apply for the execution of the decree. It appears that Chajmal Das holds a decree, dated the 5th October, 1882, against Brij Bhukan Lal and ors. He came forward with an application to the Court which had attached Brij Bhukan's decree against Chajmal Das, and prayed that the amount of his decree, dated the 5th October, 1882, should be set off u/s 246 of the CPC against the amount of the decree held a