P VASUDEVAN Vs. M PAPPU
LAWS(KER)-1968-11-6
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 01,1968

P. VASUDEVAN Appellant
VERSUS
M. PAPPU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Could you attach the maintenance grant payable to the manager of an Aided School under S.9(3) of the Kerala Education Act, read with Chap.28 of the Kerala Education Rules, in execution of a decree obtained against the school I do not really understand what is meant by a decree against a school. The School prima facie is not a juristic entity and cannot be treated as a person against whom a decree could be passed. Somehow, such a decree appears to have been passed, although the 2nd defendant, qua manager, and the members constituting the educational agency also have been impleaded in the suit which resulted in such a decree. However, the decree itself was passed only against the school, 1st defendant, the manager being only the 2nd defendant. Now, in execution of that decree obtained by a former manager (the plaintiff), the maintenance grant payable to the manager is sought to be attached as if it were the property of the 1st defendant, the Aided School.
(2.) The question that falls for consideration therefore is whether the maintenance grant can be treated as a property of the school so that S.60 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply and attachment can be effected. The Courts below have directed attachment and the 2nd defendant manager challenges those judgments on the ground that the maintenance grant is in favour of the manager, 2nd defendant, and cannot therefore belong to the school as such and secondly the said grant is impressed with a trust under Chap.28 of the Kerala Education Rules and cannot be treated as property which can be used by the manager for whatever purposes he likes, even if it were connected with the school. I am inclined to uphold both the objections.
(3.) As pointed out by me earlier, the decree is against the school and the execution is being levied against the school although I do not know how the school as such can hold property not being a juristic entity. The maintenance grant is definitely given to the manager who is a separate statutory entity. S.7 of the Kerala Education Act provides for the appointment of a manager of an Aided School, charges him with certain duties and responsibilities and empowers him with certain powers in relation to the management of the school. In the Rules also, the manager has a statutory status coupled with powers and obligations. Therefore, the decree passed against the 1st defendant school cannot be executed against monies in the hands of the 2nd defendant manager who is a distinct and different statutory functionary although closely bound up with the institution itself.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.