Civil title disputes over attached property must be decided by the civil executing court, not a Magistrate in criminal custody.

Order 21, Rule 52 CPC governs property in court custody and allows limited inquiry only within the rule's narrow scope; it does not give a Magistrate exercising criminal jurisdiction a general power to decide civil title disputes. A third-party claim to property attached in execution is to be dealt with under Order 21, Rule 58 by the civil executing court that effected the attachment. The CPC's execution machinery is a civil procedure framework and cannot be invoked before a criminal court as if it were an executing court for civil title claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Sub-divisional Magistrate, seized of money recovered in a criminal case and later attached in execution of a civil decree, had jurisdiction under Order 21, Rule 52 or Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code to inquire into and decide a third party claim to title and direct return of the money.

Analysis: Order 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with attachment of property in the custody of a court and requires the property to be held subject to the further orders of the attaching court. The proviso permits the custody court to determine questions of title or priority only in the limited situation contemplated by the rule, and does not confer a general power on a Magistrate exercising criminal jurisdiction to adjudicate civil title claims. A claim by a third party to property attached in execution is properly dealt with under Order 21, Rule 58 by the court that effected the attachment. The Civil Procedure Code is a code of procedure for civil courts, and its machinery cannot be invoked before a Magistrate as though he were a civil executing court.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute or order return of the money to the opposite party, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Questions of title to property attached in civil execution must be decided by the civil executing court under the Civil Procedure Code, and a criminal court or Magistrate cannot assume that jurisdiction merely because the property is in its custody.

---