Skip to content


Shoilojanund Ojha Vs. Peary Charan Dey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR29Cal470
AppellantShoilojanund Ojha
RespondentPeary Charan Dey
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- .....to receive offerings is a saleable property attaching to the temple, and the judgment-debtor has a disposing power over the profits accruins(sic)3. the fact that similar attachments had been made be(sic) of course nothing to the purpose. the real question is, whether the attachment is legal with reference to the provisions of section 266, code of civil procedure. the offerings in question are, it appears, entirely voluntary and therefore entirely uncertain, although it may be, as the lower appellate court says, that an estimate may be made of the average income derivable from that source. it seems to us very difficult to say that there is, properly speaking, a right to receive these offerings where there is no corresponding obligation to make them. it is difficult to see, therefore, how.....
Judgment:

Stevens and Harington, JJ.

1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether or not any offerings which may in future be made to a Hindu idol may he attached in execution of a decree for money against the idol.

2. The Courts below have both held that such offerings are attachable,--the Court of first instance probably merely on the around that similar attachments had been made before; the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that the right to receive offerings is a saleable property attaching to the temple, and the judgment-debtor has a disposing power over the profits accruins(sic)

3. The fact that similar attachments had been made be(sic) of course nothing to the purpose. The real question is, whether the attachment is legal with reference to the provisions of Section 266, Code of Civil Procedure. The offerings in question are, it appears, entirely voluntary and therefore entirely uncertain, although it may be, as the Lower Appellate Court says, that an estimate may be made of the average income derivable from that source. It seems to us very difficult to say that there is, properly speaking, a right to receive these offerings where there is no corresponding obligation to make them. It is difficult to see, therefore, how there can be any such right as could constitute a 'saleable property' within the meaning of Section 266, Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that there is a disposing power in the idol, as represented by the High Priest, over the offerings when once received does not necessarily imply a disposing power over what is called the right of receiving them. We think that the attachment in the present case was not an attachment which could be made under the provisions of Section 266, Code of Civil Procedure and that we must therefore decree the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //