Ghose and Gordon, JJ.
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether, in execution of a decree against a ghatwal, the rent of the ghatwali tenure due to him can be attached for the satisfaction of the claim of the decree-holder.
2. The application of the decree-holder in this case is not to attach and sell the ghatwali mehal itself, nor the whole of the rents due to the ghatwal; but what he asks for is, that so much of the rents as may be left after the payment of the Government revenue, the wages of the chowkidars employed by the ghatwal, and other like charges, might be attached for the satisfaction of his decree.
3. The Court below has allowed the prayer of the decree-holder, and the ghatwal has appealed to this Court.
4. The learned vakil for the ghatwal has contended before us, upon the authority of the case of Bally Dobey v. Ganei Deo I.L.R. 9. Cal. 388, that inasmuch as the ghatwal holds the estate in lieu of service, it is inalienable, and, necessarily, the rents due to him are also inalienable; and that, therefore, the order of the Court below is wrong in law.
5. It would appear upon a reference to the paper-book in the case of Bally Dobey, which we sent for, that the suit there was to enforce a mortgage security, that is to say, to sell the ghatwuli mehal which had been hypothecated by a ghatwal under a bond. The ghatwal had died, leaving a son; and the suit was to enforce the mortgage security against the son. There was no question like the one which arises in the case now before us, viz., whether, during the life-time of the ghatwal, the rents due to him, or rather the profits due to him, after all the necessary outgoings, could be seized and appropriated by the decree-holder for debts incurred by the ghatwal.
6. No doubt there is a passage in that judgment to the effect that the proceeds of a ghatwali tenure are not liable to attachment for the satisfaction of the debts due from the holder there of; bat reading the judgment by the light of the facts to which we have adverted, it is no authority in the present case.
7. There is another case upon the subject that has been brought to our notice, the case of Kustoora Kumari v. Benoderam Sen 4 W.R. Misc. Rul, p. 5. We are disposed to agree in the view therein expressed.
8. There, the profits of a ghatwali tenure were sought to be seized in execution of a decree after the death of the ghatwal, and the learned Judges observed: 'It is not denied that the money now in the hands of the Court of Wards represents the profits of the land for a period subsequent to the judgment-debtor's death, and it ought not in justice to be appropriated to pay that person's individual debts.' Then, referring to certain decisions of the late Sadr Court, which were quoted before them, they expressed themselves as follows: 'We are not told whether these surplus profits were collected during the life-time of the judgment-debtor, in which case they might reasonably be considered as his personal property and so liable; but if the decisions referred to profits accumulated after the judgment-debtor's death, we think that such decision was incorrect.'
9. In the case now before us, the profits that the decree-holder seeks to attach for the satisfaction of his claim are profits due to the ghatwal after all the necessary outgoings during his life-time; and they may well be regarded as his personal property, and as such liable to be seized and appropriated by the decree-holder.
10. Upon these considerations, we think that the order of the Court below is right, and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.