NIRMALA SUNDARI DASI Vs. MRINALINI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, dated the 4th July, 1958, in M. Ex. Case No. 21 of 1953 arising out of execution of a decree for payment of maintenance to the decree-holder at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. By the decree, premises No. 44, Garden Reach Road in the District of 24-Parganas was charged for the due payment of the maintenance. By an order dated the 28th June, 1954, the executing Court appointed a receiver of the charged property with power to realize the rents and to apply the net collections for the liquidation of the decretal dues.

(2.) IT is common case that the property charged by the decree is an estate and that the judgment-debtors are intermediaries within the meaning of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. On the due publication of a. notification under section 4 of the Act, the property vested in the State of West Bengal, free from incumbrances as from the 1st Baisakh, 1362 B. S. corresponding to the 15th April, 1955. The decree-holder as also the judgment debtors preferred claims before the Additional Collector, 24-Parganas for the ad interim compensation payable under section 12 of the Act.

(3.) BY his letter dated the 10th March, 1958, to the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, the Additional Collector, 24-Parganas asked for directions as to whom the ad interim compensation money should be paid. On the 6th June, 1958, the judgment-debtors filed two separate petitions praying for discharge of the receiver. On the 20th June 1958, the decree-holder filed a petition praying that the receiver be authorised to receive the ad interim compensation as also lump compensation in respect of the charged property sand to pay the same to the decree-holder. These several petitions as also the letter of the Additional Collector. 24-Parganas, were considered together and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge by his order dated 4th July, 1958. Before him it was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtors that they were exclusively entitled to the ad interim compensation. On behalf of the decree-holder, it was urged that the entire compensation including ad interim compensation was charged for her maintenance and as such should be realised by the receiver for the due payment of her maintenance dues. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the decree-holder's contention and passed an order empowering the receiver to receive the ad interim compensation as also lump sum compensation money in respect of the charged property, for the satisfaction of the maintenance dues of the decree-holder.