KESHO PRASAD SINGH Vs. RAGHUBIR PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the judgment-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad and it arises in the following circumstances. The opposite-party obtained against the petitioner a decree for arrears of maintenance. The petitioner preferred an appeal from that decree which is now pending for decision in this Court, namely, First Appeal No. 105 of 1932. When the opposite-party attempted to execute the decree, the petitioner applied to the Registrar of this Court for stay of execution. On 7 September 1932, a consent order was passed by the Registrar by which execution of the decree was stayed on condition that the judgment-debtor deposited in Court the entire decretal amount. It was agreed that the decree-holder should be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by giving security to the satisfaction of the Court.

(2.) The decree-holder tendered as security certain property which was found sufficient by the Court. The judgment-debtor objected to the security tendered on the ground that it consisted of properties which had been granted to the decree- holder as maintenance for himself and his family and as such it was inalienable. On 21 January, which was the date fixed for considering the objection, the judgment-debtor desired to examine witnesses to show that this property, tendered as security, was not alienable. The Court declined to examine the witnesses and proceeded to decide the matter on a consideration of certain documents.

(3.) The finding that the Court has arrived at is that the property tendered as security is property granted to the ancestors of the decree-holder for the maintenance of his branch of the family, but on a consideration of the documents it decided that the property is not inalienable and that the giving of this property as security is an act by which the members of the decree-holder's family are benefited. Mr. Sushil Madhab Mullick, on behalf of the judgment-debtor, contends that he should have an opportunity to produce his evidence with regard to the point at issue. He contends that, ordinarily, a grant for maintenance is not alienable and relies on the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rajindra Narain Singh V/s. Sundara Bibi where they held that the interest of a person in property granted in lieu of maintenance is a right to future maintenance within meaning of Section 60(1)(n) of the Civil P. C. and therefore cannot be attached and sold.