Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)Aniruddha Mitra vs Official Receiver, Alipur Judge'S ... on 27 August, 1941
Learned Counsel has referred to the case in Anirudha Mitra v. Official Receiver ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 Cal. 241. If the learned Judge in that case meant to hold that the question whether the right to receive an allowance was a right to future maintenance depended upon the intention of the person granting the allowance that it should be spent on the upkeep of the person receiving it I am with the greatest respect unable to agree. The amendment to4he Transfer of Property Act by the insertion of Clause (dd) in Section 6 makes it clear that the right of maintenance mentioned therein is not a right which accrues merely under some personal law but there must still be a right of maintenance if the provisions of the sub-section are to apply. It does not appear from the will that the trustees were under any obligation to maintain Ram Chander Singh and therefore in my opinion no question of a right to future maintenance arises. This allowance was an annuity like any other and there was no reason why it should not be transferred. In the same way it does not seem to me that it can be included within the exemption provided by Clause (m) of Section 60, Civil P.C. I consider that there is no force in these appeals and I would dismiss them with costs.
Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
L. Chunni Lal vs Chandan Gopal And Ors. on 3 April, 1939
The learned Judge of the Court below held that this allowance was liable to attachment because it was to be inherited by the appellant's male progeny. Learned Counsel for the appellant replies that there was no question of inheritance but that the trustees were to pay the allowance to Ram Chunder Singh and afterwards to his male progeny quite in-dependently. It does not seem to me that this question of inheritance is of much importance. It was held in Ashfaq Mohammad Khan v. Mt. Nazir Banu ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 410 and in Chuni Lal v. Jai Gopal ('36) 23 A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 55 that the right to receive an allowance did not amount to a right to future inheritance because the right was heritable, but it cannot be deduced from the fact that a heritable right cannot be a right to maintenance that a right which is not heritable must necessarily be a right to maintenance. The real question is what 'maintenance' means. I think it means the provision of reasonable food, clothing and shelter. A right to receive an allowance is not strictly speaking a right to maintenance although an allowance may be paid in lieu of a right of maintenance. In my judgment if any person has a right of maintenance against another he has a right to demand from that other all reasonable food, clothing and shelter. He may accept an allowance in lieu of this right so as to provide himself with these necessities, but there must be a right to be maintained before an allowance can be claimed in lieu of it. There is nothing in the will which suggests that the trustees were under any obligation to maintain Ram Chander Singh. They were under an obligation merely to pay him a fixed allowance from month to month.
1