LAL RAJINDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. SUNDER BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Board is of opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court by their judgment of May 2, 1921, was correct. It is to be regretted that the High Court did not itself, in the exercise of its powers, appoint a receiver of this property which the judgment-creditor seeks to attach and bring to sale.

(2.) Their lordships do not agree with the High Court on the subject of the actual legal position of the right of maintenance conferred upon the judgment-debtor. That right of maintenance arose under a compromise which was made between the judgment-debtor and his brother. The compromise agreement is not produced, but its terms are said by the parties to be recorded in a decree pronounced by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur on May 20, 1915. The substance of this agreement is that the judgment-debtor, one of the two brothers parties to the compromise, was declared to have a right of maintenance in certain villages enumerated, the right being conferred expressly "without power of transfer."

(3.) In the present case the Subordinate Judge in his judgment of August 10, 1920, correctly limits the issue between the parties to this maintenance question. No other point was brought before the Board. Speaking of the plaintiff, the Judge says :-"He now wants to execute that decree against the property in 16 villages, which the judgment debtor has got from his younger brother, Raja Lal Bahadur Singh, for his maintenance. His prayer is that this right of maintenance be proceeded against and a receiver appointed to realise rents and profits of the above named sixteen villages and the decretal amount be paid out of the said realisation as far as possible. To this the judgment-debtor objects on the ground that the right of maintenance is not attachable under a 60 of the Civil Procedure Code.