TMI Blog1953 (11) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taking advantage of Section 9 of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, which declares that no decree for ejectment shall be passed against a tenant who deposits in Court the arrears of rent together with costs on the first hearing of the suit, Rup Chand deposited in Court a sum of ₹ 1522/- on account of arrears of rent and the costs of the suit. The landlord who held a previous decree against the tenant in a sum of ₹ 2,862/- promptly proceeded to attach this amount in the execution of that decree. The tenant objected to the attachment but his objections were overruled both By the executing Court and the learned District Judge on the ground that as the tenant who had deposited the money in Court had disposing po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or wrongful, or where legal custody is discharged or abandoned, or where for any reason whatsoever the custody is changed from 'custodia legis' into a personal obligation to the owner. If the property in 'custodia legis' exceeds in value the amount for which it is being held, the excess alone is liable to attachment. 5. In view of the importance of the matter, I consider it desirable to mention certain cases which illustrate the principles mentioned above. In -- 'Ex parte Banner; In re Keyworth', (1874) 9 Ch A 379 (A), the plaintiff brought an action upon an overdue bill of exchange for 1200 against the acceptors. The defendants obtained leave to appear defend the action upon paying into Court 880 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to withdraw a portion of it. After the decree for pre-emption had been confirmed in appeal, the pre-emptor applied for possession of the pre-empted property. A Division Beach of the Allahabad High Court held that the decree-holder was entitled to obtain possession, and that it was not competent to the Court to pay out to any one but the person entitled to it under the decree for pre-emption any portion of the pre-emptive price, so long as the decree for pre-emption was not modified or reversed in appeal. In making the order of the Court the learned Judge observed as follows: Money paid into Court in a suit cannot be taken out of Court by a creditor of the man who pays it in so long as the suit is pending, or unless the result is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to ₹ 1,475/- in Court as directed. Subsequently a reversioner of the vendor brought a suit to have it declared that the sale was without necessity, and should not be allowed to affect his rights except in respect of ₹ 300/-, and obtained a decree. The pre-emptors then asked the Munsif for the return of their purchase-money as they no longer wished to go on with the purchase, as their decree of preemption had been superseded by the declaratory decree. The Munsif without informing the vendee ordered the refund of the money. Anderson J., who delivered the judgment of the Chief Court, observed as follows: If the pre-emptor thus steps into the vendee's shoes, it is pre-eminently just that the vendee, not the pre-em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouncil deposits an amount in Court as security for the costs of the respondents, the appellant still retains some disposing power over the amount deposited, which he may exercise for his benefit. The proposition is probably correct so far as it goes but the learned Judges who delivered this judgment were not prepared to hold that it is open to a creditor to attach the money which has been deposited in Court by way of security for the costs of the respondents. They observed that if the appeal fails and the costs decreed do not exhaust the deposit, the surplus is available to the appellant. If, on the other hand, the appeal succeeds, the whole of the deposit remains at the disposal of the depositor and may be attached in the executio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
