Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1905 DIGILAW 62 (CAL)

Satya Charan Mukherji v. Madhub Chunder Karmokar

1905-04-03

body1905
JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - In this case the Plaintiff is entitled to priority over the Defendants. The Plaintiff has been found by the lower Appellate Court to be the transferee of the mortgage in question in good faith and for valuable consideration. It must be taken, as has been found by the Court below, that no copy of the attachment order made on the 10th August 1900, that is, four days before the transfer to the Plaintiff, was affixed in the Court-house as it ought to have been in compliance with the terms of sec. 268, C.C.P., and it is quite clear from the language of sec. 276, C.C.P., that an attachment can be of no avail as against a person in the position of the present Plaintiff until a written order, that is the written order referred to in sec. 268 "has been duly intimated and made known in manner aforesaid." By "manner aforesaid" is meant the manner referred to in sec. 268, namely, by affixing a copy of the order in some conspicuous part of the Court house. As this was not done I think this appeal must fail and be dismissed with costs. Mitra, J. I am of the same opinion.