- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harai Saha v. Faizlur Rahman
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners obtained a money decree against certain persons and executed it by selling immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtors. Two other decree-holders (opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7) applied under section 73 of the Code for rateable distribution of the money realised by that sale in the petitioners' suit. The judgment-debtor then deposited in Court, under Order XXI, rule 89 (O. XXI, r. 89), money representing the decretal amount and succeeded in having the sale set aside. Subsequently, opposite parties Nos. 8 and 9 applied for rateable distribution, and distribution was made among the petitioners and all other decree-holders. A Rule was granted calling on the decree-holders other than the petitioners to show cause why the order made under section 73 should not be set aside on the ground that the Court had no power to order rateable distribution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court had the power to order rateable distribution under section 73 of the Code where, prior to the order for distribution, the judgment-debtor had deposited the decretal amount in Court under Order XXI, r. 89.
- Whether earlier authorities (notably Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mnllick, and the decisions in Sari Sundari Dasya v. Shashi Bala Dasya and Bihari Lal Paul v. Gopal Lal Seal) remain binding or are altered in effect by the legislative change replacing section 295 with section 73 and reproducing section 310A as O. XXI, r. 89.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mnllick | Held that when money was paid into Court under section 310A (old Code), there could be no rateable distribution under section 295 of the old Code, because the precise terms of section 310A excluded application of section 295. | The Court treated this decision as covering the present case unless the statutory alterations changed the law; it formed the primary authority for holding that rateable distribution was not available after payment into Court under the provision now reproduced by O. XXI, r. 89. |
| Sari Sundari Dasya v. Shashi Bala Dasya | Decision followed in Roshun Lall where application for rateable distribution was made before payment into Court under section 310A (old Code). | The Court noted this earlier decision as part of the line of authority that led to Roshun Lall and as relevant precedent supporting the proposition that payment into Court under section 310A precluded rateable distribution under the corresponding provision of the old Code. |
| Bihari Lal Paul v. Gopal Lal Seal | Another decision in the same line where application for rateable distribution was made before payment into Court under section 310A (old Code). | The Court cited it as part of the authorities underpinning the rule that a deposit under section 310A prevented application of section 295 for rateable distribution. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by identifying controlling authority: under the old Code, Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mnllick established that payment of money into Court under section 310A precluded a rateable distribution under section 295, because section 310A's terms were sufficiently precise to exclude application of section 295. That decision followed earlier cases (Sari Sundari Dasya and Bihari Lal Paul) with similar fact patterns where applications for rateable distribution had been made before payment into Court under section 310A.
The Court then examined whether changes in the statutory scheme altered that result. It observed that section 310A of the old Code is practically reproduced in Order XXI, rule 89. Section 295 of the old Code has been replaced by section 73, and the Court noted the textual difference in subject-matter: whereas section 295 referred to "assets realised by sale or otherwise in execution of a decree," section 73 refers to "assets held by the Court," a manifestly wider scope. Despite this broader phrasing in section 73, the Court concluded that this did not alter the effect of the enactment embodied in section 310A, which is reproduced in O. XXI, r. 89. Applying the established authorities to the statutory provisions as now worded, the Court held that the application for rateable distribution could not stand.
Holding and Implications
The Rule is made absolute and the order made under section 73 is set aside.
Direct consequences: the order for rateable distribution made under section 73 is vacated and the petitioner is entitled to his costs. The opinion does not discuss broader legal consequences or announce a new precedent beyond applying the earlier authorities to the present statutory framework.
Stephen and Chatterjee, JJ.:— The petitioners before us obtained a money decree against certain persons, and executed it by a sale of immoveable property belonging to them. Two decree-holders in other suits, opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7, then applied under section 73 of the Code for rateable distribution of the money realized by the sale in the petitioner's suit; the judgment-debtor proceeded to deposit in Court under O. XXI, r. 89, money representing the decretal amount, and got the sale set aside, after which opposite parties Nos. 8 and 9 applied for rateable distribution, which was made among the petitioners and all the other decree-holders. A Rule has been granted calling on the decree-holders other than the petitioners to show cause why the, order made under section 73 should not be set aside on the ground that the Court had no power to order rateable distribution.
Under the old Code it was held by this Court in Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mnllick that when money was paid into Court under section 310A, there could be no rateable distribution under section 295, for the terms of the former section were too precise to admit of the application of the latter. This followed the decisions in Sari Sundari Dasya v. Shashi Bala Dasya and Bihari Lal Paul v. Gopal Lal Seal where, as in this case, application for rateable distribution was made before the payment into Court under section 310A, now represented by O. XXI, r. 89. This case is therefore covered by authority, unless the alterations effected in the enactments in question have changed the law. Section 310A of the old Code is practically reproduced in O. XXI, r. 89; but section 295 is replaced by section 73. The result of this is that whereas the subject-matter of rateable distribution used to be “assets realised by sale or otherwise in execution of a decree,” it is now “assets held by the Court.” It is obvious that the scope of the new section is thus far wider than that of the old one; but this does not alter the effect of the enactment in section 310A which is reproduced in O. XXI, r. 89.
The result is that this Rule must be made absolute and the order set aside. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.
S.C.G
Rule absolute.
Alert