Decided on December 20,1900



- (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a decree-holder against his judgment-debtor and a person to whom the judgment-debtor had granted an ijara of the property, which he (the decree-holder) had caused to be attached in execution of his decree. The attachment is said to have taken place on the 29 September 1891, and the ijara was executed on the 7th November 1896.
(2.) The facts, as set out in the plaint, are that, after the property was attached at the instance of the decree-holder, a Receiver was appointed by the Court to take charge thereof, and to make over the proceeds of the property to the plaintiffs and the other attaching creditors; and that subsequently, while the Receiver was in possession of the property, the defendant No. 1, the ijaradar, presented before the Receiver the ijara pattah and asked that the rent payable by him under the ijara might be received. But what took place upon that application being made is not stated. It is, however, alleged that this ijara was granted at a very low rent with the object of throwing difficulties in the way of recovery of the money due to the plaintiffs, and the other decree-holders. The plaintiffs upon these allegations asked that it might be declared that the said ijara of the 7 November 1896 was null and void as against them.
(3.) The suit was contested by the ijaradar upon the ground that the question raised by the decree-holders should be decided by the Court executing the decree under Section 244 of the Civil P. C., that there was no attachment properly so-called upon the property, and that the property in question being only a maintenance grant for the lifetime of the judgment-debtor, could not be attached and sold. A further question was raised, namely, whether the plaintiffs had any cause of action.;

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