Calcutta High Court
Dwarka Mohun Das vs Luckhimoni Dasi on 10 February, 1887
Equivalent citations: (1887)ILR 14CAL384
JUDGMENT
Prinsep and Brevely, JJ.
1. The debtors apparently are partners in some firm. The decree-holder seeks to attach and sell the interest of one of these debtors, which, in his application for execution of the decree, he terms to be a debt due to that judgment-debtor from the other judgment-debtor. The amount is uncertain. It is not even shown that the business of the firm has been wound up, nor is there any certainty that such a debt exists. We cannot therefore agree with the lower Courts that such an interest can be attached and sold in execution of the decree. The case of Syud Tuffuzool Hossein Khan v. Rughoonath Pershad 14 M.I.A. 40 : 7 B.L.R. 186 seems to us to be exactly in point. The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside. The debtor-appellant will receive his costs in all Courts.