Introduction

• This is a landmark judgment relating to attachment of property in pursuance of execution of decree.
• This judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice V Neeladri Rao.

Facts

• Original Suit & Decree:
  • R-2 (son) filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 57/83) against R-1 (father)
  • The suit ended in a compromise
  • A decree for Rs. 3,513 was passed in favor of R-1 (father) for decree costs
• Execution Proceedings:
  • R-1 filed for execution (E.P. No. 54/85) to recover the amount
  • He requested attachment of immovable properties
  • Properties were attached
  • R-2 deposited the amount (Rs. 3,513) while maintaining his objections
• Application for Payment:
  • R-1 filed an application (E.A. No. 282/85) asking for a cheque for the amount
  • The judge allowed this application but required third-party security
  • R-1 filed the security bond.
• New Parties Enter:
  • The revision petitioners had filed a separate suit (O.S. No. 431/84) against R-2
  • They won this suit.
  • They then filed for execution (E.P. No. 201/85) on 27th December 1985
  • They wanted to attach the same Rs. 3,513 that R-2 had deposited
  • This attachment was made on 3rd January 1986
• Final Proceedings:
  • The revision petitioners filed for either:
    • Getting the full amount (Rs. 3,513) or
    • Getting it distributed proportionally between them and R-1
  • The judge dismissed their application
  • The judge ordered the cheque to be issued to R-1

Issue Involved

• Whether R1 (who was the original decree holder) had the right to deposited money or the revision petitioners (who had separate decree against R2 and tried to attach the money later) had the right to the money?

Observations

• The Court held that even though R-1 needed to provide security, the money was still allocated to him.
• The only remaining step was issuing the cheque once security was furnished.
• The revision petitioners filed their execution petition , which was much later than when the money was deposited.
• Under Section 73 CPC, rateable distribution is only possible for creditors who applied for execution before the court received the money.
• The revision petitioners admitted they weren't entitled to rateable distribution.
• When money is deposited in court, the court holding the money (custody court) has the power to decide who owns it.
• The court dismissed the revision petition
  • They ruled that the Rs. 3,513 belonged to R-1 (father)
  • R-1 was entitled to get the money after providing security as ordered on 9th December 1985.
  • The revision petitioners had no right to either the full amount or rateable distribution
• The attachment by revision petitioners wasn't effective because:
  • The money had already been determined to belong to R-1
  • The revision petitioners only had claims against R-2, not R-1
  • Their attempt to attach came after the money was already allocated to R-1

Conclusion

• The court essentially upheld the principle that once money is appropriated to someone by court order, it can't be attached by other creditors who come later, even if there are some conditions attached to its withdrawal.