https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272893 In proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58, the executing court must first determine who was in possession on the date of attachment and whether the objector held the property on his own account or in trust; it cannot decide title or superiority of claim at that stage. Here, the court misdirected itself by focusing on the decree-holders' alleged superior claim and a supposed statutory charge, without properly enquiring into possession or the tenants' status. The revision was maintainable under Section 115 because the error was jurisdictional and involved failure to exercise the inquiry required by law. The rejection of the objection petition was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after proper inquiry. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2018 16:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272893 In proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58, the executing court must first determine who was in possession on the date of attachment and whether the objector held the property on his own account or in trust; it cannot decide title or superiority of claim at that stage. Here, the court misdirected itself by focusing on the decree-holders' alleged superior claim and a supposed statutory charge, without properly enquiring into possession or the tenants' status. The revision was maintainable under Section 115 because the error was jurisdictional and involved failure to exercise the inquiry required by law. The rejection of the objection petition was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after proper inquiry. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272893