ARVAPALLI RAMRAO Vs. KANUMARLAPUDI RANGANAYAKULU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, J. -
(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is as to the effect of an attachment on a prior assignment of the decree and the remedies to be pursued by the assignee decree-holder after the attachment. This problem has to be solved with reference to the statutory provisions in the shape of Order XXI, Rules 16, 53 and 58 of the C. P. C.
(2.) Before we attempt to ascertain the precise scope and content of these provisions, we have to state a few facts necessary for this enquiry.
(3.) One Kanamarlapudi Ranganayakulu (hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent) obtained a money decree for Rs. 1600.00 in O. S. No. 650 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Guntur, against six persons, who figure as respondents 2 to 7 in this enquiry. On 4-10-1956, he transferred the said decree in favour of one Ramarao, the present appellant, for a consideration of Rs. 500.00 under a duly stamped document. Thereafter, four persons who obtained decrees against the 1st respondent in various Courts attached this decree. The appellant filed a petition in the Court of the District Munsif, Guntur under Order XXI, Rule 16 for recognition of the assignment and for execution of the decree. Notice of this petition was issued to the original decree-holder as also the attaching creditors and they all opposed the petition. The decree-holder resisted this on the plea that the entire consideration for the transfer was not paid, while the attaching creditor contested it on the ground that the transfer was antedated in order to defraud the attaching creditors and that, in any event, the appellant could not maintain the execution petition, his only remedy being to move the attaching Court to raise the attachment. The last contention prevailed with the result that the execution petition was dismissed. The opinion that the assignee decree-holder could not apply for execution of a decree when once it is attached and has to seek his remedy under Order XXI, Rule 59, C. P. C. rested on Yerra Musala Reddy v. P. Ramayya, 5 Ind Cas 1010 (Mad). An appeal carried by the transferee decree-holder did not bear fruit. It is the order of the appellate Judge that is the subject-matter of this appeal. It may be mentioned here that when the appellant filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 58 to raise the attachment, it was rejected on the ground that till the transfer was recognised, he had no locus standi to prefer any claim.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.