HAREKRUSHNA HARICHANDAN MOHAPATRA Vs. DOLGOVINDA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor against the appellate judgment of the subordinate Judge of Puri, maintaining the judgment of the Munsif, Puri and dismissing the judgment-debtor's objection to the attachment of the compensation money payable to him by the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa estates Abolition Act, consequent on the abolition of his jagir known as Khandayat jagir. The decree was obtained on 28-7-1929 for a sum of Rs. 851-15-6, including costs, and it is urged that notwithstanding repeated executions nothing has been realised till now. The previous execution petition was filed on 24-541 in which there was also a prayer for attachment of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtor. A list of such moveable properties was given in that petition and it was further stated; "besides these articles also other articles which would be identified at the time of attachment. " ' (Esibai Krok Samae Jaha Nisana Debu tana ).

(2.) IT is unnecessary, for the purpose of this appeal to narrate in great detail the various Unsuccessful efforts made by the decree-holder first to attach the khandayet Jagir, then again to attach the moveables, and eventually to appoint a receiver. Objections were taken sometimes even upto the High Court stage, but the decree-holder was uniformly unsuccessful. It was held by the High Court that khandayet Jagir was inalienable and hence not attachable being a jagir granted by government for the performance of certain public functions even though in fact such performance might have fallen into disuse. The decree-holder was not however without resource. As soon as the Jagir was abolished under the provisions of the Estatas Abolition Act and the compensation Was estimated by the compensation Officer as payable to the Jagirdar, viz. the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder filed a petition before the Executing Court on 8-9-59, praying for attachment of the compensation money in satisfaction of the decree. The judgment-debtor immediately objected, but his objection was overruled on the ground that the protection from non-attachability (?) of the jagir will not be transferable to the compensation money and that there was no reason why it should not be attached. This is the sole point for decision in this appeal.

(3.) MR. Dasgupta for the appellant (judgment-debtor) raised the fallowing two contentions: