attaching the property, and report to the nazir. The judgment-creditor can then proceed under secs. 268 or 274. In such cases the patel of the village should be required to give a certificate that there is a bonâ fide attachment of the revenue authorities, and should state the Govt. demand. Bom. C. 0..9.

(y) The Court of a Deputy Collector in Bengal was held to be a Court of justice competent, under this section, to determine the question of priority. Cowie v. Elias. S. W. R., X. 43.

This section gives no authority to a Civil Court to dispose of claims to money in deposit with the Collector. In re Brijonath Mitter, ib. XIII. 301.

Where an attachment of money in the hands

of a Deputy Collector was made by a Civil Court, without any direction, as is enjoined by this section, that it should be held subject to the further order of the Civil Court, it was held that the attachment ceased to be binding when once the suit for determining right of judgment-debtor was dismissed. Luchmeput Singh Doogur v. Humphrey, ib., XIV. 101.

(z) This section extends to Mufassil Small Cause Courts only so far as it relates to decrees for moveable property. The only further process after this to bring the property to sale is the issue of the proclamation of sale. Mukhta Keshi

Debi v. Kenah Mani Debi, ib. VII. 267. (a) An attachment will not be voidable merely because all the forms prescribed herein have not been followed, provided the irregularities are immaterial and not productive of any substantial injury to the person who objects to the proceedings. Musst. Koorani Dassee v. B. M. Dassee, ib., VI. Mis. 52.

Rules concerning Attachment. The Chief Court direct that cattle and other moveable property attached in villages be (after seizure by the nazir or his officers) made over to the custody of the village lambardar, or, in very exceptional cases, the village patwari or buniya, and that in the case of cattle, the sale do not take place for twenty or thirty days after attachment whenever there is any prospect of the parties coming to an amicable settle

ment.

Valuable property of small bulk, such

as jewels, &c., should be always taken to the head-quarters of the Court executing the decree. Panj. C. O. No. 1. 2nd Jany. 1874.

All orders and reports regarding attached property to the nazir should be e ndorsed on the warrant of attachment when no special forma are provided. Cen. Prov., I. 244.

To keep property under attachment longer than is necessary, subject to loss or waste, or expenditure for its protection, is injurious both to the judgment-debtor and decree-holder.

The nazir should be employed in the attachment and sale of property in execution of decree; but not ordinarily when the property to be attached may be beyond the limits of the city or town forming the head-quarters of the Court, or, when there is no such city or town, beyond the country situated within a radius of three miles from the Court-house. N.-W. P. C., 11, 54.

No remuneration or fees for such work, except expenses incurred in advertising the property, or in conveyance to and from the place of sale, should be allowed him. N. W. P. C. O., VII. 1876.

In order to avoid, as far as possible, resistance or obstruction to the attachment of property, and to facilitate the disposal of claims to attached property, the official entrusted with the execution of the warrant of attachment should be careful that property situated in villages is attached, when practicable, in the presence of the lambardar and patwari, and in towns before two of the principal householders of the mohulla, whose signature should be affixed to the list of property attached. Panj. C. O., I. 46.

The surety of a nazir who had entered into the usual bond of indemnity with the Collector of the district against all losses caused by the nazir during the tenure of his office, was held not liable, at the suit of a person whose property had been misappropriated by the nazir, to make good any loss sustained by such person. Bachu Gopee Chaudhri v. Brajagovind Dass, B. L. R., X. 26.

(b) The object of this section is to make the sale null and void so far as may be necessary to secure the execution of the decree, and relates only to alienation which would affect a creditor who obtained the attachment.

It is intended for the protection of the

creditor who has obtained an execution, and not for the protection of all those persons who at any future time might possibly obtain executions. Annund Lall Dass v. Jullodhur Shah, M. I. A., XII. 543.

The fact that a puisne attaching creditor mentioned in his application for attachment and sale of certain property of his judgment-debtor that the same property had already been attached at the instance of another execution creditor, does not render the puisne creditor a claimant through the first attaching creditor.

A puisne attaching creditor cannot be regarded as claiming through a prior attaching creditor, though the assignee of an attaching creditor's rights or the next of kin of a deceased attaching creditor may be said to claim under or through him. This section is for the benefit of an attaching creditor (subsequently to, and in defiance of whose attachment, the private alienation, thereby declared void, has been made), and of those claiming under or through him, and not for the benefit of puisne creditors, whose attachment is laid later than such private alienation. Sec. 295 applies only to cases where there has been a sale under

the first attachment. Balaji Ram Chandra v Gajanan Babaji, Bom. H. C. R., XI. 159.

To render an attachment of land, or any interest in land effectual, so as to render a subsequent alienation void, the several processes prescribed must be gone through, i. e., (1) the written order of attachment issued under sec. 274 must be read aloud at some place on or adjacent to the land or property attached; (2) the written order must be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the Courthouse; and (3) the written order must be fixed up in the office of the Collector of the zillah in which the land was situated. Indrochundra Baboo and another v. Hamilton Grant Dunlop, S. W. R., X. 264.

Where there was no attachment after the manner prescribed, but the property was advertised for sale, and the judgmentdebtor encumbered the property with liens: Held that the decree-holder can sell the property, but subject to liens which were not otherwise proved to be collusive. Sahuchand v. Gitam Singh, Agra Rep., II. A. C. 206. In a similar case, where the attachment was not made known in the manner required, and three days before the day advertised for sale, the judgment-debtor put in a petition reciting that the decree-holder had agreed to give him time on condition that the attachment should remain good, and agreeing not to alienate the property until the decree was satisfied, and then shortly after mortgaged a village in the estate to R: Held that there was nothing in the order of attachment to prevent R. from acquiring a valid title under his mortgage, and that A.'s petition did not constitute a charge on the property. Ruttennussur Singh v. Ram Tanu Ghose, ib. XII.

491.

A obtained a decree ex parte against B. Property belonging to B. was attached in execution. While under attachment

B. sold the property to C. Afterwards B. applied for and obtained an order, under sec. 108, to set aside A.'s decree and for a new trial: Held that C.'s purchase was not null and void under sec. 276. Lala Jagat Narayan Tulsiram B. L. R., A. C., I. 71; S. W. R., X. 99. The proceedings in execution being terminated, and the case struck off, the owners of the estate may, notwithstanding the previous attachment, deal with it as an unattached estate. Jain Singh v. Teeluck Dhari Phattack, ib. I. 318. The plaintiff sued to recover certain land which had been hypothecated to him in 1843, and subsequently sold to him in 1868, while under attachment in execution of a decree in a suit brought by the plaintiff to establish his hypothecatory claim. The third defendant claimed under a mortgage prior in date to the hypothecation to the plaintiff, and under a sale prior in date to the sale to the plaintiff, made to the third defendant whilst the land was under attachment in execution of the decree to the plaintiff. Held, that the sale to the third defendant, which was made, not under any agree. ment with the plaintiff for the satisfaction of the decree through the Court, was invalid by reason of sec. 274, but that the alienation to the plaintiff, the decree-holder, during the attachment to satisfy the decree, which was duly sanctioned by the approval of the Court which issued the process of attachment, was valid. Annavunadavan v. Iyaswamy Pillai and others, M. H. C. R., VI. 65, An alienation, null and void because made while an attachment was lasting, is not made valid by the removal of the attachment. Ram Charan Lall v. Jhabba Sahai, S. W. R., XIV. 25.

This section prohibits a sale of attached property to the judgment-debtor whilst the attachment is pending Mad. H. C. V. 410.

An estate does not cease to be under attachment merely by the appointment of a manager, Mahabir Parshad Singh v. Colloctor of Tirhut, S. W. R., XIII. 423. Lastly, the word "enforceable" clearly shows that attachments do not invalidate alienations by any one who has a better right than, and independent of, the judgment-debtor.

(c) Any person who has a share in the property attached is entitled to appear under this section; thus, where in execution of a decree against A, the half share of A in certain lands was attached, and M., admitting that A. has th share in the land, alleged that A. had only that th share, while 2-8ths belong to him, it was held that this was a claim which the

Court was bound to investigate and adjudicate upon. The Full Bench further

held that M. was entitled to have the attachment removed so far as his own share was concerned. Cowar Rajkumar

Roy v. S. M. Kadambini Debi, B. L. R. (F. B.), IV. 175. Again, where an objection was filed by B., against whom a decree in her representative character had been obtained for a debt contracted by her mother, that the property attached was not her mother's, but was inherited by her from her father; and further, that the decree declared that execution should only be taken out against the mother's estate, and not against the mother's deceased husband's estates: Held that B. was a third party unconnected with the decree, and her objections should have been disposed of under this section. Haris Chundra Gupto v. Sremato Shashimala Gupto, ib. VI. 721; see also Maharaja D. M. C. Bahadur v. Musst Peari Dass. S. W. R. V1. 61. J. S. Rainey V. Ishar Chan dar Bhattacharji, ib., XII. 333.

A mortgagee in possession of mortgaged premises that have been attached by prohibitory order in execution of a decree obtained against his mortgagor is entitled to come in and have the attachment raised. Kassiroo R. Sahib Holkar v. Vithaldas Mangali. Bom. H. C. Rep., X. 100. A claimant in proceeding under this section should begin, and the evidence should be confined to his own title and possession, not to that of any one else. Nga Tha Yah v. Burn, S. W. R., (F. B.), XI. 8. The onus is on him, and an important question is, who was in possession at the time of attachment? ib. XV. 202; also Digambari Dossi v. Beni Madhub Ghose, ib. 155.

A Judge's order, after refusing to receive evidence which it is his duty to receive, is ultra vires. Bhoi Narinee Debi v. M. N. M. S. D. Bahadoor, ib. XXIV. 422. A sale ought to be stayed until the decision of a regular suit brought by a claimant to have his right declared to property attached after his claim has been disallowed under this section. Doorga Charan Chatterji v. Ashootosh Dutt ib. XXIV. 70. (d) Money paid to release an attachment in execution of a decree cannot be made the subject of a claim under this section. Muhammed Beg v. Jugger Nath Dass and Rogonath Dass, claim of Omerchund and Ramnarain, 1 Ind. Jur. (N. S.) 248. A judgment-creditor who attaches property which does not belong to his judgment-debtor commits a trespass for which he is responsible in damages, even though he may have acted without malice and

under mistake. Damodnr Taljaran v. Lalloo Khoosal Dass. Bom. H. C. R., VII. 177. Thus where a defendant caused the cattle of a stranger to be seized and taken in execution of a decree against the judgmentdebtor, the stranger's claim under this section was allowed. After the claim was admitted, but before the order was given for the release of the cattle, three of the bullocks died: the plaintiff, (i. e., stranger) sued for damages consequent on the seizure, and for the value of the bullocks which had died while they were in the custody of the officer of the Court. The damages were given, viz., a sum sufficient to cover what would have been the plaintiff's expenses for hiring bullocks to cultivate his lands, but the value of the bullocks was not given on the following grounds: "The plaintiff might have obtained an order providing for their safe custody pending the decision of the claim; perhaps, on giving security, might have himself been appointed manager, and allowed the use of the cattle. As no such application was made, the custody of the bailiffs of the Court must be taken to have been that of persons to whom the cattle were entrusted for safe keeping, pending the decision of the claim, either by consent of the parties or the act of the Court. The defendants could not be made responsible for any damage to the cattle not shown to have been occasioned by negligence. B. L.R. III. 43. If attachment be not the direct act of the judgment-creditor, but a judicial act of the Court, it was held that no action would lie against the defendant for ob taining an order of attachment, without proof that he had acted fraudulently or misrepresented or suppressed the facts in making his application to the Judge This was held in the case Jaekulli Dassi v. Chand Mulla, S. W. R., XI. 133. The defendant was attempting to execute a decree barred by limitation, and the Judge directed that the property should remain under attachment pending appeal, after a decision that the right to execute the decree was barred. The defendant had resorted to the Court to seek the enforcement of a suppossd right. The order made on his application was, no doubt, improper, and its consequences were most mischievous, but it was a judicial act of the Court.

But where a judgment-debtor owned a half share in bullocks which had been attached, he was held not to have committed any trespass. Rajbullub Gopi v. Essan. Chander Hazra, S. W. R., VII. 355, When a proper application for process has been made and a proper order granted, the officer of Court cannot be considered to