PARASARAM KESAVACHARYULU AND PARASARAM MADHAVA Vs. VENUGOPALASWAMY VARU
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 17,1955

PARASARAM KESAVACHARYULU AND PARASARAM MADHAVA Appellant
VERSUS
VENUGOPALASWAMY VARU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

QUEEN V. POSTMASTER GENERAL. [REFERRED TO]
GORDON V. JENNINGS [REFERRED TO]
PREMA PRAKASH V. MOHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY V. CHENMAL MAYACHAND [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH V. MOHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS AND SOUTHERN MAHARATTAH RAILWAY VS. CHENGALI SYDALLI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhimasankaram, J. - (1.)The judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 52 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali, are the appellants. They are the archakas of the temples of Sri Venugopalaswamy and Anjaneyaswami of Chavali. The trustee of these temples obtained a decree in a suit against the appellants for mesne profits and the decree was sought to be executed by attachment of the crops standing on the land in the possession of the archakas of about Ac. 9-86 cents in extent which they obtained in a compromise between them and the trustee by which it was agreed that one half of the land belonging to the deities should be in the possession of the trustee and the other half in the possession of the archakas. The material portions of the decree are as follows :
"Clause (1).-That the immovable properties in cach of the villages of Chavali and Penamarru and more fully set out in the plaint schedules attached to the decree of the lower Court, be divided into two shares of equal value and that possession of the northern half in each of the villages be delivered to the 1st respondent (herein plaintiff) a trustee of the suit temple and that the appellants herein (Defendants 1 to 3) the present archakas and their successors in office do retain possession of the southern half in each of the villages and that the archakas and their successors in office do remina in possession of those properties as long as they continue to perform the services."

"Clause (6).-That the archakas and their successors in office do meet the Paditharam and other expenses connected with the income of the property allotted to them as per paragraph I supra to the extent of a half of that income and that they be at liberty to retain the lemaining half of the income as their remuneration."

(2.)The trustee, as already stated, has now attached the crops standing on the land in the possession of the archakas in execution of the decree. The appellants contend that, so far as the part of the income which is to be used for paditharam is concerned, it cannot be attached, as it is really trust property in their hands. As regards the other half of the income, their claim that it is exempt from attachment either under clause (h) or clause (i) of section 60 (1), Civil Procedure Code. Section 60 (1) so far as is material may be quoted thus : "The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely ......provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namelv,......... (A) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind ; (i) salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees and one half the remainder." The question for decision so far as the latter claim is concerned is, whether the crop which the appellants are entitled tc enjoy can be described as ' the wages of labourers and domestic servants ' or ' salary '. Stroud's Judicial dictionary under the heading of ' wages ' bears this note : "Though this word might be said to include payment for any services, yet, in general, the word 'salary' is used for payment of services of a higher class, and ' wages ' is confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans " (Per Grove, J., Gordon v. Jennings. (1882) 51 L.J.Q..B. 417.
(3.)This is followed by an extract of a dictum of Bramwell, B, in these terms : "Whatever definition one gives to the term " wages ", a portion of what the plaintiff here gets is ' profits ' made and makeable by the employment of other people under him. If a portion is that, the whole is not wages".
;


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