MIR MAHEBUBALLI Vs. AHMADA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This second appeal arises-out of proceedings in execution of a decree which was passed against the appellant judgment-debtor in Suit No. 202 of 1916. The suit related to the arrears of profits appertaining to the shares of the respondents decree-holders in the Jahagir which is in the management of the appellant as the certificate holder. As the decree could not be satisfied by the appellant for nearly 12 years after it was passed the respondents presented their last application for its execution and prayed for the appointment of a receiver of the estate apparently under the provisions of Section 51 (d) read with Order 21, Rule 11 (iv), Civil P. C. The executing Court accordingly appointed a receiver following Rajindra Narain Singh v. Sundara Bibi . The Court also ordered that "the judgment-debtor would be allowed the necessary maintenance." Against this order the judgment-debtor appealed, but the District Judge, Akola, dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the judgment-debtor has come up to this Court on second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant's learned Counsel contended, in the first instance, that since the Jahagir was granted under inam Rule 3, Berar Inam Rules, for maintenance, it was not liable to attachment in execution of a decree. It appears that in the two Courts below it was assumed that the Jahagir itself was inalienable and was therefore unattachable in execution of the decree. But following the view propounded by the Privy Council in Rajindra Narain Singh v. Sundara Bibi it was held that a receiver could be appointed to manage the Jahagir for the benefit of the decree-holders subject to a suitable allowance for the maintenance being made in favour of the judgment-debtor. It was contended for the respondents in this Court on the authority of Jalaluddin v. Mohammad Amir, , that the Jahagir in question was itself alienable and therefore attachable. But since no inquiry was made in the executing Court whether the grant in the present case fell under Clause (1) or Clause (3) by reference to the orders of the Government of India sanctioning the grant, and there are no materials on the record, it is not possible to say that the Jahagir in question is alienable. The present case is however hardly distinguishable from Rajindra Narain Singh's case and the order of appointment of the receiver is therefore correct.