Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Sarangapani And Ors. vs The Secretary Of State For India In … on 11 January, 1893
Equivalent citations: (1893) ILR 16 Mad 479
Bench: A J Collins, Kt., Parker


JUDGMENT

1. In this case the Collector made the prior attachment under the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act I of 1886, Sction 28. The lands were subsequently attached by a private creditor and sold in execution. The question is whether the property passed to the purchaser subject to the liability to be sold under the attachment previously made by the Collector.

2. The learned pleader contends that the terms of Section 28 of the Abkari Act do not extend the provision of Section 2, Madras Act II of 1864, to sales for arrears of abkari revenue, and that since the Revenue Recovery Act does not prohibit alienation after attachment, the attachment made by the Collector is absolutely void either against a private alienation or against a subsequent attachment in execution of a Court-decree. If this contention be valid, it would follow that the Crown would be in a worse position than any private creditor, even though making the first attachment, since it could not even claim rateable distribution under Section 295, Code of Civil Procedure, because the attachment made by it, though made under the provisions of the law, was not made in execution of a decree for money.

3. We cannot accede to the contention. The attachment made by the Collector did undoubtedly render the property subject to be sold under Section 28 of the Abkari Act, and the creditors who subsequently attached in execution of a Court-decree could not attach a larger interest than then belonged to his judgment-debtor. That interest was subject to the liability which had been legally imposed in due course of law and the purchaser could take no more. The principle of the decision in Subramanya v. Rajaram I.L.R., 8 Mad., 573 applies. This is not a case of competition between different decree-holders under the Civil Procedure Code.

4. In this view it is not necessary to consider the wider question as to whether as a Crown debt the Collector’s claim would have precedence.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.148 seconds.