DEBKUMARI BIBI Vs. RAM LAL MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order made by the Zilla Judge refusing to make an order at the instance of a judgment-debtor, under section 243, Act VIII of 1859. It appears that the respondent, Ram Lal Mookerjee, holds a dur-mokurrari tenure of an estate held in mokurrari by the judgment-debtor, Debkumari. Debkumari having failed to make due payment of her rent to the zamindar, Ram Lal, in order to protect his own sub-tenure, paid the rent, and subsequently sued her, and obtained a decree against her for the amount. In satisfaction of that decree, he has attached the very property of which she holds the mokurrari, and of which be is her lessee. Upon this Debkumari petitioned the Judge, setting forth that she had this and other property which had been granted to her for her maintenance, and proposing to place this and the other estates in question under the management) of the Court; so that, after the payment of a small yearly sum for her maintenance, the profits should be carried to account towards the payment of the sum due under the decree; and thus, in the course of a few years, the whole amount could be satisfied.

(2.) The Judge has refused to make such an order, apparently upon two grounds. The first of those grounds is, that the judgment-debtor he says has other property, that is, other property than the property under attachment; and secondly he says that, as the profits of the mehal in question are only rupees 650 annually, if the prayer of the judgment-debtor were acceded to, the decree-holder would be kept out of his just dues for a long period, and would have to run the risk of bad collections and similar losses in the profits.

(3.) Now it seems to me, that the circumstance of the judgment-debtor being possessed of other property, instead of being a ground for refusing this prayer, ought rather to have been a ground for complying with it, because, if those were properties of inferior value, and such as would be more conveniently dealt with for the purpose of saving this one, then that would be a good reason for staying the sale, and making such use of those other properties. The particular property under attachment is, I presume, the most valuable that this lady possesses. The Judge's observation that the decree-holder would have to run the risk of bad collections and the like, suggests to my mind that he has forgotten what the real relative position of the parties is. The risk of bad collections is one which the decree-holder has already taken upon himself, because he and not the judgment-debtor, is the party who is to collect the rents, and she has only to receive from him a fixed reserved rental every year. It seems, under these circumstances, that an arrangement by which the decree-holder, instead of paying his lessor, should pay himself annually, either after reserving, or without reserving, a sufficient sum for her maintenance, is one of obvious convenience.