1. The question arising in this civil miscellaneous second appeal, which is preferred by the judgment-debtor and the receiver, is whether the land constituting the jaghir which the former enjoys is attachable in execution. The learned District Judge has answered the question in the affirmative on two grounds: firstly, that it is res judicata; and, secondly, that the question of law in respect of this identical jaghir has already been decided by this Court. The matter is said to be res judicata upon the strength of a previous execution petition, Ex. A, but Mr. Somayya does not desire to press this point, as, from the terms of the order, the matter seems to be somewhat in doubt. He relies rather upon the previous decision of this Court above alluded to. That has been reported as Rama Rao v. K. Thima Reddi  54 I.C. 331, and the learned Judges who decided it point out that the Pensions Act, which was relied upon in order to protect the property from attachment, makes a distinction between pensions on the one hand and grants of money or land revenue on the other.
2. In Sections 4 and 5, both these categories are alluded to and provided for, but in Section 11, which relates to exemption from attachment, reference is made only to pansions and not to grants of money or land revenue. It is not disputed that this jaghir is a grant of land revenue. The same distinction has been recognized in Subraya Mudali v. Velayuda Chetty  30 Mad. 153 which related in point of fact to the construction of Section 12 of the Act, but which however necessitated the elucidation of the meaning of Section 11. I think that it is clear, following these decisions, that so far as the Pensions Act shows anything, it indicates that property of this kind is intended to be attachable, because it draws a distinction between it and other non-attachable property. Then Mr. Sitarama Rao has urged that independently of the Pensions Act property of this character should be held not to be attachable under a decree. The point was not taken in the lower Court nor does it seem to have been taken in the cases to which I have just referred. I am unable to find that there is any substance in it. Section 60, Civil P. C., defines the classes of property which shall be exempt from attachment and excluding such property it lays down that property of all kinds which belongs to the judgment debtor or over which or the profits of which he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit shall be attachable. It can hardly be disputed that the jaghir is the personal property of the jaghirdar and accordingly there is nothing in this section which will render it exempt from being proceeded against under a decree, Reference has then been made to the Crown Grants Act which provides by Section 2 that the Transfer of Property Act shall not apply to grants from the Crown, including, I suppose, a jaghir of this character. But that is not to say that operation of the Civil Procedure Code is also rendered inapplicable.
3. The only cases of grants with a condition attached which so far as I can find have formed the subject of judicial decision in this Court are cases of service inams. One example of such a case is Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Dantivada Chelliah  28 Mad. 84, which related to a village service inam controlled by the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 3 of 1895. Section 5 of the Act in terms renders it unlawful for any Court to attach or sell such emoluments or any portion thereof, and the learned Judges who decided that case were therefore able to base their decision upon a statutory provision. In Anjaneyulu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd. A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 197, Schwabe, C. J., and two other Judges of this Court have held that lands hold on swasthivachakam service tenure are not subject to attachment in execution of a decree. But the decision, as the judgment of the learned Chief Justice plainly shows, us based upon the conditions as to service attching to the grant and circumstance that the right to enjoy the property was contingent upon the performance of those services. It was concluded accordingly that the land which was burdened with the performance of a service which is of a public nature must be protected in the interests of the public from attachment and sale in execution. No such considerations apply to the case of a grant of a jaghir or other rent-free land which is not burdened by any condition as regards service and I am unable therefore to agree that the grounds upon which this case was decided have any application. I must accordingly hold that there are no grounds for differing from the view of the law which was taken by the lower Courts. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed with costs.