NATHMAL MARWARI Vs. CHAINSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JACKSON , A.J.C. 1. The question is whether a sum payable to the respondent, a judgment-debtor, by the Government, as compensation for forest dues in respect of jagir land taken over by the Government for forest purposes, is exempt from attachment. The learned District Judge has held that the sum is exempt from attachment under Section 11, Pensions Act, 1871. But that section only applies to pensions given for certain reasons and this sum is not paid as for any of those reasons and does not appear to be a pension, but a "grant of money or land-revenue" within the meaning of Section 3.

(2.) THE respondent argues that, the decree not being against him personally but only against the assets of his father in his hand, the sum now in dispute is not liable to attachment under the decree. It is true that the decree is simply against the respondent; but the Judgment shows that the decree was to be against the assets of the deceased. The sum in dispute became due for payment after the death of the respondent's father; but I am of opinion that, it is still liable to attachment under the appellant's decree. In Muttayan Chettair v. Sangila Vira Pandit [1883] 6 Mad. 1 it was held that the defendant was liable for the debts due from his father to the extent of the assets which descended to him from his father, and all the right and interest of the defendant in the zamindary which descended to him from his father became assess in his hand. In the present case, the right to receive payment annually in respect of land taken over by Government is clearly part of the right and interest-in the family estate that descended to the respondent from his father. I allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower appellate Court. I fix pleader's fee at Rs. 25/1/4.