https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277655 Where a later High Court rule authorised a different and court-approved arrangement for the custody of attached movable property, the attaching officer's responsibility ceased once the arrangement was approved, despite the earlier rule requiring custody with the officer or a subordinate. A person who voluntarily accepted custody of the attached property and undertook to return it when required was treated as a surety, and could be proceeded against in execution under Section 145. The matter was remitted for inquiry into the liability of the deceased supurddar's heir and estate. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Dec 2018 13:23:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277655 Where a later High Court rule authorised a different and court-approved arrangement for the custody of attached movable property, the attaching officer's responsibility ceased once the arrangement was approved, despite the earlier rule requiring custody with the officer or a subordinate. A person who voluntarily accepted custody of the attached property and undertook to return it when required was treated as a surety, and could be proceeded against in execution under Section 145. The matter was remitted for inquiry into the liability of the deceased supurddar's heir and estate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Jul 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277655