JUDGMENT 1. The facts on which this Rule was issued, are as follows: one Binjraj Marwari had a half share in a certain sum of money which was in deposit in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Asansol. The deposit in that Court was in execution of a decree in which Binjraj Marwari was one of the decree-holders. On the 4th June, 1930, Binjraj Marwari assigned his interest in the decree by a registered conveyance in favour of the Petitioner. On the 25th July, 1930, the money in the custody of the Additional Subordinate Judge was attached in execution of a decree, by the Original Side of the High Court. On the 22nd August, 1930, there was an order passed by the High Court in its original jurisdiction directing the Subordinate Judge at Asansol to pay over the money to the Sheriff of Calcutta to be placed to the credit of the suit No. 929 of 1929 of the High Court. On the (1) I.L.B. (sic) (sic) 100 (sic). 27th of November, 1930, the Petitioner applied to the Additional Subordinate Judge for being substituted in place of Binjraj and to withdraw the money lying to the credit of the latter. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed the following order: " The dues of Binjraj Marwari has already been attached by the Hon'ble High Court. So the money cannot be paid unless the attachment is released." On the 1st December, 1930, the Petitioner again filed a petition before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and prayed for detaining the money attached by the High Court till the hearing of the petition filed on the 27th November, 1930. The Court thereupon passed the order that " the Court had no power to detain the money; the Petitioner might move the High Court for the same." These two orders are challenged before us on the ground that the Court below refused to exercise its jurisdiction in view of the provision of Or. 21, r. 52, C. P. C. That Rule says, to put the relevant portion of it, that when a property in the custody of a Court is attached, any question of title arising between the decree-holder and any other person, not being a judgment-debtor, claiming to be interested in such property by virtue of any assignment, shall be determined by such Court. Apparently the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge is the Court in whose hands, the money is attached by the High Court and that is the Court that should determine any question arising between the Petitioner and the attaching decree-holder. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that since the order of the 22nd August, 1930, was passed by the High Court directing the Subordinate Judge to remit the money to the Sheriff, though the money was not remitted and though it is still in the custody of the Subordinate Judge, the High Court virtually was the custody Court and therefore Or. 21, r. 52 does not apply. I am of opinion that that is not the correct view of the law. The question now is as to which is the Court which has the custody of the money. If the money had been remitted to the Sheriff surely the Subordinate Judge would cease to have the custody of the money; but the money we are told is still lying in the Court of the Subordinate Judge; therefore that Court must be taken to be the Court which has the custody of the money and that Court must determine the question of title raised in this case by the Petitioner by claiming to have interest in the attacked property by virtue of an assignment. Reference has been made to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, in E. M. Visvanadhan Chetty v. Arunachelam Chetti ILR 66 Mad. 100 (F. B.) (1930), but that case is not relevant for our present purpose. There the question was between the attaching creditors as to whether the money which was attached in the hands of a Court should be rateably distributed under sec. 73, C. P. C, or should go to the first attaching creditor. There is another feature of that case which distinguishes it from the present one. There the money was attached by the Court which had the custody of the money in execution of another decree. 73, C. P. C, or should go to the first attaching creditor. There is another feature of that case which distinguishes it from the present one. There the money was attached by the Court which had the custody of the money in execution of another decree. In delivering judgment of the Full Bench the learned Chief Justice however observed: " The money may not be available as being already subject to another attachment, possibly in another Court, and it is only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no objection and orders the money, or so much as it thinks necessary to satisfy the decree-holders who have applied to it for execution, to be transferred to the credit of the first attaching creditor's suit which it is engaged in executing, that there can be said to be receipt of assets within the meaning of sec, 73 and that a rateable distribution can be made." In view of this observation there has been no transfer of custody in the present case and the money deposited in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Asansol was not credited to the attaching creditor in the High Court suit. 2. In the circumstances of the present case Or. 21, r. 52, C. P. C., applies and the Court of the Subordinate Judge is the proper Court to determine the question of title between the Petitioner and the decree-holder in the High Court suit. This Rule is made absolute and the" Court below is directed to proceed under the provisions of the law as laid down by Or. 21, r. 52, C. P. C. and finally dispose of the matter. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs which we assess at two gold mohurs.