BANSI RAM Vs. NARSINGHA SANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant obtained a decree for money against the respondent and in execution of the decree attached certain crops standing on the land belonging to the latter. An objection was taken to the attachment on the ground that the land was granted as jagir without the power of alienation and that, therefore, the crops could not be attached. The Court of first instance held that the land had been granted to the ancestors of the respondent by way of maintenance and that Court was of opinion that one-half should be left to the respondent by way of maintenance and the other half might be attached by the decree-bolder.

(2.) On appeal, the learned District Judge held that usufruct of property was not property and could not be attached, and accordingly he disallowed the application for execution altogether.

(3.) The decree-holder has appealed to this Court. We are of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge is wholly incorrect. The land is inalienable, but the crops belong to the respondent which he can transfer at his pleasure. We think there is nothing to prevent his creditor from attaching the crops : and we fail to appreciate the reasoning by which the learned Judge holds that the crops or the usufruct of property is not property. He seems to have confused the right to enjoyment of the land with the produce of the land.