Compensation money payable to a jagirdar consequent on the abolition of a jagir cannot obviously be preserved intact from generation to generation, and it is difficult to conceive how it could be impressed with the same incidents which were attached to the original tenure.

Judgement

NARASIMHAM, C.J. :- This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor against the appellate judgment of the subordinate Judge of Puri, maintaining the judgment of the Munsif, Puri and dismissing the judgment-debtors objection to the attachment of the compensation money payable to him by the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, consequent on the abolition of his jagir known as Khandayat Jagir. The decree was obtained on 28-7-1929 for a sum of Rs. 851-15-6, including costs, and it is urged that notwithstanding repeated executions nothing has been realised till now. The previous execution petition was filed an 24-5-41 in which there was also s prayer for attachment of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtor. A list of such moveable properties was given in that petition and it was further stated; "Besides these articles also other articles which would be identified at the time of attachment." (Esibai Krok Samde Jaha Nisana Debu Taha).

2. It is unnecessary, for the purpose of this appeal to narrate in great detail the various Unsuccessful efforts made by the decree-holder first to attach the Khandayet Jagir, then again to attach the moveable, and eventually to appoint a receiver. Objections were taken sometimes even upto the High Court stage, but the decree-holder was uniformly unsuccessful. It was held by the High Court that Khandayet Jagir was inalienable and hence not attachable being a jagir granted by Government for the performance of certain public functions even though in fact such performance might have fallen into disuse. The decree-holder was not however without resource. As soon as the Jagir was abolished under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and the compensation was estimated by the Compensation Officer as payable to the Jagirdar, viz. the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder filed a petition before the Executing Court on 8-9-59, praying for attachment of the compensation money in satisfaction of the decree. The judgment-debtor immediately objected, but his objection was overruled on the ground that the protection from non-attachability (?) of the jagir will not be transferable to the compensation money and that there was no reason why it should not be attached. This is the sole point for decision in this appeal.

3. Mr. Dasgupta for the appellant (judgment-debtor) raised the following two contentions :

(i) The compensation money is nothing else but the original jagir transformed into money and hence the special incidents of the jagir such as non-attachability will also be transferred to the compensation money.

(ii) In any case the application will be barred under Sec. 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, because the compensation money is a new item of property, and any prayer for its attachment must be considered to be a fresh application for the purpose of that section. These two arguments are somewhat mutually destructive but I think the second contention must prevail.

4. So far as the 1st contention is concerned, Mr. Dasgupta relies very much on Ravu Janardhana Krishna Kanga Rao v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 185 where it was held, following some English decisions, that if the original estate was inoperative the compensation money payable for the abolition of the estate will also be impartible because compensation money is nothing else but a piece of land represented by a sum of money, and that the principle of conversion would not alter the quality or nature of the estate (see paragraph 12). But this principle cannot be extended to Jagirs which are held to be not attachable on grounds of public policy because certain public duties were expected to be performed by the jagirdars. The impartiality of an item of property is mainly based on family custom and the persons directly affected are the various heirs of the deceased. In the case of jagir lands however where public duties are attached to the same (even though these duties might not have been strictly enforced fo