KARUNAMBAL AMMAL Vs. CHELLAYA GURUKKAL ALIAS SUBRAMANIA APPUKUTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this civil miscelaneous second appeal and this civil revision petition is whether the earnings of the heirs of a certain gurukkal in a temple which are in the shape of presents by devotees for archakathwam service rendered by them are liable to be attached as assets of the deceased gurukkal in their hands under a decree passed against them with reference to such assets. The Courts below have held that the earnings are not so liable.

(2.) Mr. Ramamurti contends before me that this decision is wrong. His point is that but for the fact that the right of archakathwam service devolved upon the judgment-debtors as heirs of the deceased gurukkal, they would not be entitled to earn the emoluments and that therefore the emoluments should be treated as assets liable to be attached. The fact, however, which this argument overlooks, is that even after the devolution of the archakathwam service by inheritance upon the judgment-debtors, there can be no question of the earning of the emoluments sought to be attached except by reason of personal services which are liable to foe rendered by the judgment-debtors in the temple. Mr. Ramamurti relies upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 'Nandkumar Dutt v. Ganesh Das', 58 All 457. As the head note rightly bears, what we get as the decision in that case is, that in execution of a decree against the assets of a deceased person in the hands of his heir, the right to receive the offerings periodically in future can be attached and sold, as being such an asset, and not only the collections which have actually been made by the heir. With reference to the incident of the office there in Question, the Court (Sulaiman C. J. and Bennett J.) observes in its judgment at page 463 of the report thus,

(3.) A Madras case has also been brought to my notice which is reported in 'Kadiryelusami Nayagar v. Eastern Development Corporation', 47 Mad 411 (F. B.). That is a simple case uncomplicated by any question of earnings for service in any institution and all that is decided by the case, as the headnote shows, is that on the death of a debtor the income accruing to his heir from landed property, of which the debtor died possessed, is assets of the debtor in the hands of the heir, liable to satisfy his debts within the meaning of Section 52 of the Civil P. C. Another Madras case which has been cited to me is a similarly uncomplicated case and takes the appellant no further than the one which I have discussed.