The Madras Mercantile Agencies Ltd. vs Raja Bommadevara Venkata Bhashyakarlu Rao Naidu Bahadur Garu and Another

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—The petitioner before us, the Madras Mercantile Agencies Limited, obtained a decree is the Small Cause Court at Madras, against the Zaimindar of South Vellur. The estate of South Vellur has been taken over by Government and compensation therefore has been deposited with the estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagram, The petitioner, in execution of this small cause decree, filed an application for a prohibitory order directed to the Tribunal for the attachment of the share of the compensation money payable to the Zamindar. The execution petition was admitted and an interim order of attachment was passed and also a final order.

Subsequent to that date, the Registrar of the Small Cause Court appears to have addressed a communication to the Chairman of the Estates Abolition Tribunal for the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,000, and odd, which was claimed in the execution petition. The Chairman appears to have pointed out in a D. O. letter addressed to the Registrar that u/s 42 of the Estates Attention Act, the creditor had to file his claim before the Tribunal and that he could not file an application for the attachment of the moneys payable to one or the sharers entitled to the compensation amount.

On receipt of this letter, without any further notice to the parties, including the decree-holder-petitioner, the Registrar dismissed the execution petition. The civil revision petition has been filed questioning the propriety of this order and the jurisdiction of the Registrar to dismiss the petition in these circumstances.

We are clearly of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the Chairman of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, contained in his communication to the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, as regards Section 42 of the Estates Abolition Act is not correct. That section does not preclude the share of the compensation amount owing to the sharers before the Tribunal from being, their property and being attachable by others who have claims against such sharers. Indeed, Section 59 (2) of the Act makes this position perfectly clear.

In the circumstances, the order of the Registrar of the Court of Small causes was erroneous and without jurisdiction and it is hereby set aside. The execution petition will be restored to file and will be dealt with according to law. As the order now in revision was passed not on the invitation of any party, there will be no order as to costs.