Parvathi Ammal vs Ganapathy Pattar

Kumara Pillai, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order allowing rateable distribution of an amount deposited in Court.

The Petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S. 186 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittur. She filed that suit on 10-7-1950 against counter-Petitioner 1 on a pronote executed by him, and attached before judgment his share in some Immovable properties. On 18-7-1950 counter-Petitioner 1 sold the properties that were attached before judgment to one Parameswara Iyen reserving with him a sum of Rs. 255-6-0 out of the sale consideration for depositing the same in Court and raising the attachment before judgment. Subsequently the vendee deposited Rs. 275/- in Court and got the attachment before judgment cancelled on 25-7-1950. This amount was attached before judgment in two other suits filed against counter-Petitioner 1 in the same Court viz., S.C. 92 of 1950 and S.C. 96 of 1950. Counter-Petitioner 2 was the Plaintiff in S.C. 92/50 and counter-Petitioner 3 the Plaintiff in S.C. 96/50. The attachment in S.C. 92/50 was on 27-7-1950 and the attachment in S.C. 96/50 on 7-8-1950. O.S. 186 of 1950 was decreed on 14-8-1950, and the two small cause suits were also decreed subsequently.

After the three suits were decreed, the Petitioner applied for payment to her of the decree amount in O.S. 186 of 1950 out of the amount deposited in that suit for cancelling the attachment before judgment; and counter-Petitioners 2 and 3, who had applied for rateable distribution of the amount, opposed her application. The Court below held that the amount had to be rateably distributed between the three decree-holders and ordered it to be so distributed by its order dated 8-11-1950. This revision petition i filed against the said order.

It was contended by the Petitioner''s learned Counsel that the amount was deposited in O.S. 186 of 1950 for the purpose of payment to the Petitioner of the decree amount in that suit, that ever if it was not expressly stated so in the application of the vendee for permission to deposit the amount, it should be deemed to have been deposited for that specific purpose, and that as the attachments by the Plaintiffs in S.C. Nos. 92 and 96 of 1950 were made after the money was deposited in Court, they have no claim for rateable distribution of the amount. As regards the last contention, the argument was that the assets were received by Court when the money was deposited by the yendee and that the decree-holders in the small cause suits had not applied for execution of their decrees before the receipt of the assets. Reliance was placed by the Petitioner''s counsel on the decision reported in - Venkitarama Iyer v. Sebastian 20 KERL.R. 138(A)in support of his contention that the decree-holders in S.C. Nos. 92 and 96 of 1950 were not entitled to get rateable distribution.

Exhibit A is a copy of the sale deed which counter-Petitioner 1 and Ors. executed on 18-7-1950 and Ex. I is copy of the petition filed by the vendee seeking permission to deposit the amount in O.S. 186 of 1950 and praying for cancellation of the attachment before judgment. In neither of these documents the claim of the Petitioner to the amount sued for in O.S. 186 of 1950 was admitted; and it was not stated in them that the money might be paid to her in case the suit was decreed in her favour. From Exs. A and I it is abundantly clear that the money was paid into Court only for the purpose of withdrawing the attachment and allowing the vendee to get the property free of attachment. So, except the right that she would get by the attachment before judgment the Petitioner had not obtained any charge or right over the money by its deposit in Court.

In the case reported in -20 KER L.R. 138(A) it was expressly stated that the learned Judges were assuming that the deposit was made to the credit of the suit so that the Plaintiff might withdraw it in case the suit was decreed. In Mulla''s Code of Civil Procedure, 1941 Edition, the learned commentator says at page 1120:

Where money is paid into Court by the Defendant under this rule the Plaintiff acquires no charge on the money and it passes to the Official Assignee on the insolvency of the Defendant - Errikulappa v. The Official Assignee, Madras AIR 1917 Mad 743 . This is because the money is deposited as security to produce and place at the disposal of the Court property which the Defendant was about to dispose of or remove from the jurisdiction of the Court - AIR 1917 Mad 743 (2)(B). For the same reason the amount deposited is subject to rateable distribution u/s 73 above - Ghisulal v. Todurmull AIR 1922 Cal 19(C). But if the Defendants deposit money in Court - Ex parte Banner v. Keyworth (1874) 9 Ch. A. 379(D) or with Plaintiff''s pleader - Gouranga Behari Basak and Another Vs. Manindra Nath Das Gupta, in part satis- laction of money to which Plaintiff may be found entitled as the result of a pending action, the money is earmarked for payment to the Plaintiff....

It was held in - Tadi Bulli Tammireddi, and Tadi Harinarayanareddi, minor by father and next friend, the first appellant Vs. Tadi Bulli Gangireddi,

Moneys attached before judgment by a number of creditors and realised before any of them obta1ned decrees, should be held to the credit of all the suit and distributed between all the attaching creditors who subsequently obtained decrees if they have obtained decrees before any of the Ors. apply for payment. Priority of attachement by itself confers no prior right.

These extracts furnish complete answers to all the contentions put forward in this Court by the Petitioner''s learned Counsel.

The amount was not deposited in Court in part satisfaction of the money to which the Petitioner might be found entitled to as the result of O.S. 186 of 1950 which was pending at the time of the deposit. It was paid into Court by the vendee of the property attached before judgment; and the Petitioner has not acquired any charge on that amount. I therefore hold that the Court below was right in holding that the amount in deposit in O.S. 186 of 1950 was subject to rateable distribution between the decree-holder in that suit and the decree-holders in Small Cause Suits Nos. 92 and 96 of 1950. The revision petition is hence dismissed with costs.