Supramaniam Chetty V. Mohamadu Bhai

Present; Dalton J. and Jayewardene A. J.

SUPPRAMANIAM CHETTY v. MOHAMADU BHAI et al.

193-D. C. (My.) Kandy, 33,020.

    Concurrence-Seizure of money in hands of a public officer-Payment into Court-Seizure under another urrit-Claim to concurrence- Realization of assets-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 350 and 352.

A sum of money in the hands of a public officer -was seized in execution of a writ on August 5, 1925, and a notice was issued to him on August 17 to show cause why he should not pay the money into Court.

On August 31 he was ordered to pay the money into Court, and the money was deposited to the credit of the case on October 10.

The appellants, who had applied for execution against the same judgment-debtor in another Court, obtained writ and seized the said sum of money on August 27, and made a claim for concurrence on October 2.

Held, that the appellants were entitled to claim concurrence.

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Kandy. The plaintiff in the action, who had obtained judgment for a sum of Rs. 500, seized on August 5, 1925, a sum of money, which had been deposited by the judgment-debtor with the Government Agent, Central Province. Notice was issued on the Government Agent on August 17 to show cause why he should not pay into Court the sum seized. On August 31 order was made requiring the Government Agent to deposit the money in Court, which he did on October 10. The appellants, who are judgment-creditors of the same judgment-debtor in C. R., Kandy, Nos. 3,642 and 3,643, also seized the money under their writs on August 27, 1925, and claimed concurrence on October 2. The learned District Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to concurrence.

H. V. Perera, for appellants.

Keuneman, for respondent.

March 5, 1926. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

This appeal raises a question with regard to the appellants' right to claim concurrence in a sum of money brought to the credit of the action. A sum of money had been deposited with the Government Agent, Central Province, by the judgment-debtor. The plaintiff in the action, who had obtained judgment for a sum of Rs. 500, had the property seized under section 232 of the Civil

Procedure Code, and it was subsequently, on the orders of the Court, deposited to the -credit of the case. The appellants, who are judgment-creditors of the same judgment-debtor in two cases, Nos. 3,642 and 3,643, also had this money seized under their writs. Later they preferred a claim for concurrence in this action. The respondent disputes their right to concurrence, and the question for decision is whether the claim can be sustained under the code.

The facts on which the contest between the parties arises are as follows:-

July 29,1925.-Respondent's writ issued for the seizure and sale of the defendant's property.

August 5.-rSeizure of money in the hands of the Government Agent, Central Province.

August 19.-Notice issued on the Government Agent, Central Province, to show cause why he should not pay into Court the sum seized under writ.

August 24.-Letter from Government Agent, Central Province, informing the Court that there is a sum of Rs. 407 due to the judgment-debtor and that Government makes no claim.

August 31.-Order on the Government Agent, Central Province, to deposit the money in Court.

October 10.-Money deposited to the credit of the case.

The appellants had issued writ and seized the sum of money in the hands of the Government Agent, Central Province, on August 27, and on October 2 made their claim for concurrence. On these facts the learned District Judge has held that the assets must be considered as realized under section 352 of the Civil Procedure Code on August 24, when the Government Agent, Central Province, informed the Court that he had no claim on the fund which was in his hands, and that as the seizure by the appellants was subsequent to such realization, they were not ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document