THUMMALAPENTA DHANALAKSHMI Vs. PULIPATI SUBBARAYUDU
LAWS(MAD)-1953-7-25
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 31,1953

THUMMALAPENTA DHANALAKSHMI Appellant
VERSUS
PULIPATI SUBBARAYUDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chandra Reddy, J. - (1.) This revision petition raises a question of some importance, viz., whether money deposited by a judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 89 will enure only to the benefit of the decree-holder that brought the properties to sale in execution of his decree or available for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C. The petitioner in this case, who obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 603 of 194S on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Guntur, brought certain properties of the judgment-debtor to sale and they were purchased by a third party. The judgment- debtor applied to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89 depositing five per cent, by way of solatium to be paid to the purchaser and the decree amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the proclamation of sale. The respondent herein, a decree-holder in O. S. No. 480 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ongole, who was executing his decree, applied for rateable distribution of the amount deposited by the judgment-debtor. The petitioner opposed this application contending that the same having been paid specifically for his benefit could not be distributed under Section 73, Civil P. C.
(2.) The District Munsif overruling the objection of the petitioner granted the prayer of the respondent. In doing so he relied upon a ruling of this court in -" Thiraviyam Pillai v. Lakshmana Pillai', AIR 1919 Mad 647 (A). The learned District Munsif thought that the trend of the reasoning in that case supported his conclusion.
(3.) The creditor, who is aggrieved by this order, has filed the present revision petition challenging the propriety of that order. Mr. Kotayya, appearing for the petitioner, submits that far from lending any support to the view taken by the learned District Munsif, -- 'AIR 1919 Mad 647 (A)' is clear authority for the proposition that a deposit made under p. 21, R: 89 is not available for rateable distribution.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.