JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The respondent firm obtained a decree for a sum of money against two sisters in a suit in which the applicant was also a defendant. The suit as against him was dismissed. In that suit the learned Sub-Divisional Judge of Kyauktan came to a finding in regard to certain property which was originally joint property of the two sisters and the applicant, who is their brother. The applicant put in evidence the deed whereby his sisters released in his favour their rights in this property, and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that this deed was not a genuine deed, and consequently the respondent firm attached this property in execution of its decree against the sisters, and the applicant applied under Order 21, Rule 581 Civil P.C., for removal of the attachment on the ground that the property belonged to him alone. The learned Sub-Divisional Judge dismissed this application for removal of attachment on the ground that, although it was admitted that the applicant was in possession of the property, nevertheless he had held in the previous suit that the applicant was not in possession on his own account and that he had no real title in the property. An application has now been made to this Court in revision against this order for removal of attachment, it being alleged that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. It seems to me that this application must fail on two main grounds.

2. It is a recognized principle of the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction by a High Court, that it will not exercise that jurisdiction in cases where the applicant has another certain and conclusive remedy allowed to him by law. On this point see the cases of Gopal Das v. Alaf Khan (1899) 11 All. 383 and J.J. Guise v. Jaisraj (1893) 15 All. 405. In the present case the proper remedy of the applicant is, of course, to bring a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., and let me add that no finding at which the learned Sub-Divisional Judge has arrived in the application under Rule 58 will be binding upon the applicant in a suit which he may bring under Rule 63. The second point is that it has been decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1885) 11 Cal. 6 that where a Court has jurisdiction to decide a question before it and, in fact, decides the question, it cannot be regarded as acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity merely because its decision is erroneous. Now, in an application under Order 21, Rule 58, there are two points which the investigating Court has to decide. It has to decide, firstly, whether the applicant was in possession of the property and secondly, whether, if in possession, he was in possession on his own account or in trust for some other person. These two points have been decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Judge. He has decided that the applicant is in possession of the property, and he has decided further that he is not in possession on his own account, and on those decisions as to the facts he has disallowed the application.

3. In having decided these questions it cannot be said that he has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. The question whether his decision on these points is correct or not is not one which can be agitated in this application. It is a matter which will have to be fully gone into and finally decided if and when the applicant brings his suit under Rule 63. In support of the proposition made on be-half of the applicant, that the High Court will exercise its revisional jurisdiction in correcting errors made by Courts in connection with an investigation under Rule 58, Order 21, the cases of Phomon Singh v. A.J. Wells A.I.R. 1923 Rang. 195 and Somasundaram Chettyar v. Ma Shwe Thit A.I.R. 1929 Rang. 152 have been cited; but in both those cases the facts were of an extreme nature, and what the