Sarup Lal Vs. Radha Manoharji Maharaj - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Case Number||Ex. Second Appeal No. 2556 of 1965|
|Judge||Hari Swarup, J.|
|Acts||Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 60; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 69|
|Respondent||Radha Manoharji Maharaj|
|Appellant Advocate||S.P. Goyal, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate||D.P.S. Chauhan, Adv.|
.....- execution court has raised an objection that annuity payable to deity cannot be attached - held, annuity payable to deity under u.p. zamindar abolition and land reform act, 1951 is liable to attachment and execution under section 60. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8..........of the decree. this objection was rejected by the execution court. in appeal learned district judge held that the annuity was not attachable in execution of the decree. he further held that the decree could be executed only against mangal singh and against the interest that accrued on the amount of the annuity and not against the annuity money itself.2. learned district judge has not at all considered the relevant provisions regarding the attachability of an amount in execution of the decree. section 60 of the code of civil procedure is the only relevant provision. instead of considering this provision, the learned district judge went on to consider some observations in mulla's hindu law and held that the decree was not executable. there is no clause under section 60 which exempts.....
Hari Swarup, J.
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. The appellant had obtained a decree against the deity Thakur Radha Manoharji and his Shebait, Sri Thakur Mangal Singh. When the decree was put in execution, several objections were raised to the executability of the decree. Before the execution court only one objection, was pressed and argued. That was to the effect that annuity payable to the deity under the U. P. Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in lieu of the Zamindari property could not be attached in execution of the decree. This objection was rejected by the execution court. In appeal learned District Judge held that the annuity was not attachable in execution of the decree. He further held that the decree could be executed only against Mangal Singh and against the interest that accrued on the amount of the annuity and not against the annuity money itself.
2. Learned District Judge has not at all considered the relevant provisions regarding the attachability of an amount in execution of the decree. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the only relevant provision. Instead of considering this provision, the learned District Judge went on to consider some observations in Mulla's Hindu Law and held that the decree was not executable. There is no clause under Section 60 which exempts the annuity payable under the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act from the attachment in execution of a decree. The amount of annuity was, therefore, liable to attachment in execution of the decree. It may be open to the judgment-debtors to pay up the decretal amount from whatever source they like; but the decree-holder cannot be compelled to seek execution against the amount of interest and not against the amount that may be received by the judgment-debtor by way of annuity, or to seek the execution against one judgment-debtor and not the other.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The order of the court below is set aside and the order of the execution court restored.