GOPAL DASS Vs. ABDUL JABBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is by the decree-holders and arises out of an application which was made in the Court below to attach monies alleged to be standing to the credit of the judgment-debtors in a provident fund called the Provident Fund of the Tin Plate Company of India, Ltd.

(2.) The Court below has refused to issue an attachment on a consideration of the rules governing the fund. The question for consideration is one that has of recent years been canvassed frequently in the Courts and appears no nearer a solution as different Courts have taken different views and necessarily the rules of each provident fund differ in some particulars from the rules of similar funds. It is a somewhat startling proposition that persons may place their money in deposit in a particular fund entering into an agreement among themselves to the effect of which is said to be that their creditors may be deprived of the right to touch those funds in order to realise dues from a contributor to the fund. Ordinarily a person's assets are liable for payment of his debts in whatever form he may keep or wherever he may keep them provided they are situate within the jurisdiction of the Court which is asked to proceed against them. This, of course, is subject to statutory prohibitions examples of which are to be found in Section 60, Civil P.C. I am not concerned with the Provident Funds Act in the present in. stance because this case does not come under it. So far as the provisions of Section 60 are concerned, the amount standing to the credit of the judgment-debtor in this case does not come within any of the items mentioned in the proviso to that section. A difficulty does arise in cases of this nature when contributions to a fund have been vested in trustees.

(3.) In such cases it may be that the decree-holder is not entitled to obtain against the trustees an attachment order in respect of the amount standing to the credit of a contributor. But apart from the case where the funds are vested in trustees and cases where there are statutory prohibitions against the seizure or attachment of the deposits of a contributor, I cannot understand on what principle such amount is to be considered as beyond the reach of the contributor.