AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.—Section 86 of the CPC of 1859, which was re-enacted without material alteration in Section 487 of the Code of
1877 and in Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 of the present Code, admittedly had the effect of applying to claims in respect of attachments before
judgment all the provisions of Section 246 of that Code, including the final provision enabling the party against whom the order was given to bring a
suit to establish his right at any time within one year from the date of the order. By the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1871 the provision as to
limitation was taken out of Section 246 and dealt with in Article 15 of that Act. In the Code of 1877, Sections 278 to 283 were substituted for
Section 246 of the Code of 1859. In Section 283, which corresponded to the last sentence of Section 246, the language was altered, but there
was nothing in the alteration from which an intention to make any of these provisions inapplicable to attachments before judgment could be
inferred, nor is there anything of the sort in the changes made in the Code of 1908. The general policy of the law is that questions of title raised by
claims against attachments before or after judgment should be promptly disposed of and, as has been pointed out to us, this section was applied
without question to a case of attachment before judgment which came before the Privy Council in Kissorimohun Roy v. Harsukh Das (1890) ILR
17 Cal. 436 (P.C.).
We must overrule Ramanamma v. Bathula Kamaraju ILR (1918) Mad. 28 and answer the question in the affirmative.