1924. Present: De Sampayo J. and Garvin A. J.

APPUHAMY v. RAMANATHAN.

 37-D. C. Kegalla, 5,186.

Insolvency-Seizure of decree in favour of debtor in execution- of decree against him-Subsequent adjudication of insolvency of debtor- Rights of seizing creditor to proceeds of execution-Insolvency Ordinance, s. Ill-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 254 and 339.

A seized in execution of his decree against his judgment-debtor B a mortgage decree in favour of B. A few days thereafter B was adjudicated an insolvent. A however proceeded with the execution, and realized a stun of which was only sufficient to satisfy A's decree in part. The District Judge refused A's application to draw this sum on the ground that the proceeds should be paid to the credit of the insolvency proceedings.

Held, that A was entitled to draw the money.

By virtue of section 254 of the Civil Procedure Code, B in effect ceased to be the decree-holder when it was seized, and the decree was no part of B's estate when B was adjudicated insolvent.

It is impossible to apply to A the provisions of section 111 of the Insolvency Ordinance, and to hold that he only seized the decree and di