D.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are not only interesting but raised a lot of confusion in the Courts below. Daya Singh had a deposit with the Post Office Savings Bank at Chee-cha Vatni, District Montgomery, West Pakistan. As at the relevant time, Daya Singh was dead the Savings Bank deposit on transfer to Morinda Post Office in district Ambala stood in the name of his widow. The transfer was necessitated by reason of the partition of India in 1947.
(2.) On the basis of a pronote executed by the widow on the 28th of May, 1948, in favour of Sheo Ram father of the present appellant a suit was filed. On the 11th of November, 1949, attachment before judgment of the amount lying in the name of the widow in the Post Office Savings Bank account in Morinda was obtained by the creditor. On the 4th February, 1950, Ram Lal minor son of the lady filed] objections under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning the attachment on the ground that the money in the Post Office Savings Bank belonged to him. These objections were rejected by the trial Judge. This led to a suit by Ram Lal under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of one- half of the Savings Bank deposit, which was held to be the property of Ram Lal. The attachment of the other half was held to be in order and the suit qua the other half was dismissed.
(3.) On the 29th of May, 1950, Sheo Ram's suit on the basis of the pronote was decreed. He sued out execution and died during the pendency of the same. But the same were continued by his son Dip Chand and his mother Chandra Wati with the re- suit that on 30-11-1951, Rs. 2,522/6/- i. e., one half of the Savings Bank deposit, which in tile suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code had been held to be the property of the widow of Daya Singh, was realised and paid to the decree-holder.;