V. B. RAJU - (1.) In this civil revision application it is contended that the executing Court had no right to go into the questions of title while investigating a claim or objection made under O. 21 R. 58 C. P. Code. The mode of such investigation is explained in O. 21 R. 58 O. 21 R.59 and O. 21 R. 60 C. P. Code. O. 21 R. 58 relates to claims or objections on the ground that the property attached was not liable to such attachment. The question whether the property was or was not liable to such attachment is therefore to be investigated. Order 21 R. 59 C. P Code provides that the claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in or was possessed of the property attached. The executing Court has therefore to see whether the claimant or objector has adduced evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest or was possessed of the property attached. O. 21 R. 60 C. P. Code reads as follows :- - Where upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not when attached in the possession of the judgment-debtor or of some person in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him or that being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at such time it was so in his possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for some other person or partly on his own account and partly on account of some other person the Court shall make an order releasing the property wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit from attachment.
(2.) According to this provision the Court must be satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not when attached in the possession of the judgment-debtor or in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him or that being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at such time it was so in his possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for some other person or partly on his own account and partly on account of some other person and then the Court shall make an order releasing the property wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit from attachment. Order 21 Rule 63 C. P. Code provides that where a claim or an objection is preferred the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute but subject to the result of such suit if any the order shall be conclusive. According to these provisions therefore the claimant or objector can contend that he has a right to the property in dispute and he may establish that right if an order is made against him in the execution proceedings. It is clear from these provisions that the scope of investigation of a claim or objection under O. 21 R. 58 C. P. Code is that which is prescribed in Order 21 Rules 58 59 60 and 63 C. P. Code. Even when deciding the point mentioned in O. 21 R 60 for instance the question whether the possession of the judgment-debtor was possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for other person the question of title may sometimes have to be gone into. Ownership is an interest in property and the words some interest are used in O. 21 R. 59 C. P. Code according to which the claimant must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in or was possessed of the property attached. If he was the owner of the property on the date of the attachment that would of course mean that he had some interest in the property. In Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Parshad I.L.R. 15 Calcutta 531 their Lordships of the Privy Council have observed at p. 626 as follows :- - But besides that the Code does not prescribe the extent to which the investigation should go and though in some cases it may be very proper that there should be as full an investigation as if a suit were instituted for the very purpose of trying the question in other cases it may also be the most prudent and proper course to deliver an opinion on such facts as are before the subordinate Judge at the time leaving the aggrieved party to bring the suit which the law allows to him. However that may be their Lordships do not desire to pronounce any opinion as to the extent of the investigation which is require under the Code.
(3.) In Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharuddin Sardar I. L. R. 61 Cal. 548 it is observed as follows at p. 666 :- - Now rules 58 to 62 of Order XXI are directed to give a means by which execution proceedings may be made effective and not too closely entangled with disputes between third parties and the debtor. Provision is made for investigation of claims in a limited fashion. The scope of the enquriy being confined the investigation will not always be at all elaborate and the Privy Council in Sardhari Lals case (I.L.R. 15 Cal. 521 526 have pointed out that some times that investigation may well be very slight indeed. Rules 60 and 61 provide them for a summary investigation into possession as distinct from a thorough trial of ultimate right. It is impossible to separate altogether the question of possession and of title. Thus if the judgment-debtor was in possession he may have been in possession as agent or trustee for another and this has to be enquired into. To that extent the title may be part of the enquiry in a claim case but no ultimate questions of trust are intended to be thrashed out. ;