Paras Ram vs Karam Singh and Others

Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.—The Judge was wrong in refusing to entertain the applicant''s objection u/s 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the property had been made the subject of an attachment under Chapter XIX of the Code, the right of the objector to assert his claim to be the true owner of the property would not be ousted by the mere circumstance that the judgment-debtor had been declared insolvent, and that his property had been vested in a receiver under Chapter XX. It would be the insolvent''s property only, not that of the objector, that would become thus vested. The application must be entertained, and if it be found that the property in question had been attached in execution of a decree against the insolvent, the Court below will have next to determine the issue of fact raised by the objector u/s 278, and determine the case accordingly. The case is remanded u/s 562 to be disposed of as above indicated, and the costs so far will be costs in the cause.