V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) IN this civil revision application it is contended that the executing Court had no right to go into the questions of title while investigating a claim or objection made under O. 21 R. 58 C. P. Code. The mode of such investigation is explained in O. 21 R. 58 O. 21 R. 59 and O. 21 R. 60 C. P. Code. O. 21 R. 58 relates to claims or objections on the ground that the property attached was not liable to such attachment. The question whether the property was or was not liable to such attachment is therefore to be investigated. Order 21 R. 59 C. P Code provides that the claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in or was possessed of the property attached. The executing Court has therefore to see whether the claimant or objector has adduced evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest or was possessed of the property attached. O. 21 R. 60 C. P. Code reads as follows :- -WHERE upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not when attached in the possession of the judgment-debtor or of some person in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him or that being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at such time it was so in his possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for some other person or partly on his own account and partly on account of some other person the Court shall make an order releasing the property wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit from attachment. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to this provision the Court must be satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not when attached in the possession of the judgment-debtor or in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him or that being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at such time it was so in his possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for some other person or partly on his own account and partly on account of some other person and then the Court shall make an order releasing the property wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit from attachment. Order 21 Rule 63 C. P. Code provides that where a claim or an objection is preferred the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute but subject to the result of such suit if any the order shall be conclusive. According to these provisions therefore the claimant or objector can contend that he has a right to the property in dispute and he may establish that right if an order is made against him in the execution proceedings. It is clear from these provisions that the scope of investigation of a claim or objection under O. 21 R. 58 C. P. Code is that which is prescribed in Order 21 Rules 58 59 60 and 63 C. P. Code. Even when deciding the point mentioned in O. 21 R 60 for instance the question whether the possession of the judgment-debtor was possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account of or in trust for other person the question of title may sometimes have to be gone into. Ownership is an interest in property and the words some interest are used in O. 21 R. 59 C. P. Code according to which the claimant must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in or was possessed of the property attached. If he was the owner of the property on the date of the attachment that would of course mean that he had some interest in the property. If he was the owner of the property on the date of the attachment that would of course mean that he had some interest in the property. In Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Parshad I. L. R. 15 Calcutta 531 their Lordships of the Privy Council have observed at p. 626 as follows :- -BUT besides that the Code does not prescribe the extent to which the investigation should go and though in some cases it may be very proper that there should be as full an investigation as if a suit were instituted for the very purpose of trying the question in other cases it may also be the most prudent and proper course to deliver an opinion on such facts as are before the subordinate Judge at the time leaving the aggrieved party to bring the suit which the law allows to him. However that may be their Lordships do not desire to pronounce any opinion as to the extent of the investigation which is require under the Code. ( 3 ) IN Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharuddin Sardar I. L. R. 61 Cal. 548 it is observed as follows at p. 666 :- -NOW rules 58 to 62 of Order XXI are directed to give a means by which execution proceedings may be made effective and not too closely entangled with disputes between third parties and the debtor. Provision is made for investigation of claims in a limited fashion. The scope of the enquriy being confined the investigation will not always be at all elaborate and the Privy Council in Sardhari Lals case (I. L. R. 15 Cal. 521 526 have pointed out that some times that investigation may well be very slight indeed. Rules 60 and 61 provide them for a summary investigation into possession as distinct from a thorough trial of ultimate right. It is impossible to separate altogether the question of possession and of title. Thus if the judgment-debtor was in possession he may have been in possession as agent or trustee for another and this has to be enquired into. To that extent the title may be part of the enquiry in a claim case but no ultimate questions of trust are intended to be thrashed out. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant however relies on Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharuddin Sardar I. L. R. 61 Cal. To that extent the title may be part of the enquiry in a claim case but no ultimate questions of trust are intended to be thrashed out. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant however relies on Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharuddin Sardar I. L. R. 61 Cal. 548 sardhari Lal v. Ambika Parshad I. L. R. 15 Calcutta 531 this decision does not take a view contrary to that taken by me. It has been observed in this case as follows :- -THE scope of an inquiry in a claim filed under O. XXI r. 58 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 is to be restricted to a summary investigation into the question of possession as distinct from a thorough trial of the ultimate right and therefore an elaborate inquiry into the question of title cannot be gone into in such an application. The claimant objecting to the attachment has to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in the property or was possessed thereof. It is only in such cases that a claim for removal of attachment can succeed. ( 5 ) THE words some interest occurring in O. XXI r. 59 of the Code mean such interest as would make the possession of the judgment-debtor not on his own account but on account of or in trust for the claimant. ( 6 ) IT is therefore clear that a claimant objecting to the attachment should show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in the property. What is emphasized is that an elaborate inquiry into the question of title may not be necessary. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant also relies on Ambalal Oza v. Punjabhai Pandya A. I. R. 1943 Bom. 129 but in this case the question related to an order of costs. There may be some observations in this case regarding the scope of Order 21 Rule 58 but the revision application that was decided was against an order of the lower Court that the petitioner should refund the costs which he had recovered from the tenant in pursuance of an order passed in certain claim proceedings under O. 21 Rule 66 C. P. Code. The learned counsel for the applicant also relies on Jamal Bros. and Co. vs. Chip Moh. and Co. The learned counsel for the applicant also relies on Jamal Bros. and Co. vs. Chip Moh. and Co. A. I. R. 1927 Rangoon 287 This decision will not apply to the facts of the instant case because in the instant case there is a finding that the judgment-debtor was not in possession but that the claimant was in possession in his own right. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied on Bachulal v. Ram Din A. I. R. 1939 Allahabad 117 where it is observed as under:- -RULES 58 and 60 when read together make it perfectly clear that the Courts duty in dealing with an objection under O. 21 R. 58 is to concentrate on the question of possession and to decide whether the judgment-debtor is in possession of the property of his own behalf or on account of or in trust for some other person. If the Court finds that the property is in the actual possession of some other person. If the Court finds that the property is in the actual possession of some person other than the judgment-debtor then it has to decide whether that possession is in trust for or on behalf of the Judgment-debtor. The Court is not concerned with the question of title to the property is in fact incompetent to consider and decide that question. The order of release or otherwise must be based entirely upon the finding on the question of possession. ( 8 ) IT is not necessary to refer to this decision because there is no reference in it to Order 21 Rule 59 C. P. Code. The learned counsel concedes that there is no reference to Order 21 Rule 59 C. P. Code in this case. In fact the Court below came to the finding that the applicant was possessed of the property in his own right and not on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The finding is therefore that the judgment-debtor was not in possession of the property in his own right. In view of this finding the revision application is clearly not maintainable. Moreover proceedings under O. 21 Rule 58 C. P. Code are of a summary nature and the parties have another remedy under O. 21 R. 68 C. P. Code. On this ground also the civil revision is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE revision application is therefore dismissed. Moreover proceedings under O. 21 Rule 58 C. P. Code are of a summary nature and the parties have another remedy under O. 21 R. 68 C. P. Code. On this ground also the civil revision is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE revision application is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed. .