107-NLR-NLR-V-19-MUTTUSAMY-v.-SATHASIVAM-AIYAR-et-al.pdf
( 415 )
Present: Ennis J■ and Shaw J.
MUTTUSAMY v. SATHASIVAM AIYAR et al.
500—D. C. Colombo, 46,229.
Injunction—Money deposited mCourt undertheLandAcquisition
Ordinance—Separate actionagainst aclaimant—Application for
issue of injunction to restrain defendant not to draw money pendingdecision of action—Civil Procedure Code, s. 669.
The Government paid intoCourt, incase No.2,867, asum of
money as compensation forthe acquisition of aland. Theplaintiff
died petition of interventiontoo late toestablishhis claimin that
case. He then instituted the present action to establish His claimagainst the defendants, andprayedin hisplaintfor aninjunction
restraining the defendants from drawing a sum of Bs. 4,200.
Held, that the Court hadpower,under section669 ofthe Code,
to issue the injunction, andthat thiswas a proper casefor the
exercise of the power of the Court.
fJlHE facts appear from the judgment.
Bawa, K.C. (with him Tisseverasinghe), for appellant-.
Drieberg, for respondents.
Cur. adv. vuli.
March 7, 1917. Ennis J.—
•
This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant an injunctionrestraining the defendants from drawing a sum of Rs. 4,200, partof the compensation paid into Court by the Government in Crowncase No. 2,367, as compensation for the acquisition of certain landin Captain’s Garden, Colombo. The plaintiff-appellant filed a peti-tion of intervention in Crown case No. 2,367 too late to establishhis claim in that case. He then instituted the present action to es- .tablish his claim against the defendants, and prayed in his plaintfor an injunction. The learned District Judge refused to grant aninjunction, on the ground that it would “ negative the effect of theorder made in case No. 2,367 rejecting the plaintiff’s application tointervene
The application for an injunction was made under section 87 ofthe Ordinance and section 669 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therespondents contend that the present action is merely a claim for thepayment of money, and that the application is really one undersection 653 of the Civil Procedure Code for sequestration beforejudgment. The argument is that the defendants alone have the
1917.
( 416 )
1917.
IBnkxb J.
Muttusamyv. Satha-.
rivam Aiyar
right to draw the money directed to he paid to them in the caseNo. 2,367, and that it no longer partakes of the nature of immovableproperty.
Section 86 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance, No. 3 of 1876,.provides that an award under the Ordinance shall not affect theliability of any person, who may receive compensation, to pay thesame to the person lawfully entitled thereto. The conversion of theimmovable property into money cannot be prevented by anyclaimant, and it seems to me that so long as the compensation for theland has not been paid out by the Court receiving the deposit,it still partakes of the nature of immovable property, and a specificclaim, as in this case, for the money so deposited may be made.A somewhat similar decision, in the case of a sale under the Parti-tion Ordinance, was given in the case of Sebastian Fernando v.Nonohamy.1 The circumstances of the present case are such thatthere is no particular reason why an order should not be madeunder section 669 of the Civil Procedure Code for the detention ofthe compensation pending the termination of the suit.
I would allow the appeal. The costs to be costs in the cause.
Shaw J.—-
I agree. The money that "the plaintiff seeks to restrain the de-fendant from drawing represents the share in the land acquired thathe claims belongs to him, and is the subject-matter of the presentsuit. I think the Court has power, under section 669 of the Code,to make an order for its detention, pending the decision of the suit, onsuch terms as to security as it thinks fit, and that this is a propercase in which to exercise the power. The application is for aninjunction, but the effect is the same.
Appeal allowed.
♦
» J Bal. 140.