- (1.) THIS is a revision application by the decree-holders against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore, holding that profits accruing to the Judgment-debtors as a result of the cultivation of fields which came into their hands as the assets of their deceased father Lachhman, were not liable to be taken in execution of a decree in respect of the liability of the latter.
(2.) THE applicants obtained a decree for Rs. 672/- against Ratna and Phagalia in respect of a debt of their deceased father Lachhman. THE judgment-debtors inherited Khatedari rights in some fields from Lachhman but they cultivated these fields and raised crops. THE applicants applied for the attachment of the crops in execution of the decree on the ground that the profits accruing from the fields were part of the assets which were liable to be taken in execution. This Contention was overruled by both the courts below. There is some conflict of judicial opinion on this question. In Kadirvelu-sami V. Eastern Development Corporation Ltd. (I) it was held that profits accruing from land are liable as assets because they are accretions to it. This decision was followed by the Lahore High Court in Manzur Hussain vs. (Firm) Ram Rattan (2 ). It was held that where the estate in the hands of the heirs of the original debtor against whose estate the decree was passed is liable for the satisfaction of the decree, then even the produce and income of that estate which has accrued after the death of the original debtor is liable to attachment and sale in satisfaction of such decree. In Sundarajalu V. Natesa (3) a similar question arose for decision. It was contended that the standing crops having been raised by the defendant subsequent to the decree out of his own efforts and exertions himself meeting the expenses of cultivation, they could not be said to form part of the assets of the deceased and therefore the crops were not liable to be attached in execution of the decree. It was held following the Full Bench case in Kadirveluswami V. Eastern Development Corporation Ltd. (1) that the decree-holder was entitled to take the profits from the cultivation in execution, the defendant being entitled to the cultivation expenses and to other expenses which he might have incurred in raising the crops. In Anant V. Tukaram (4) a similar question arose. There was a decree against the father whose lands were inherited by the son. These lands could not be attached or sold in execution of the decree by virtue of section 22 Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act. It was however held that the rents arising out of the land could be taken in execution as they were part of the assets received by the son from the deceased. A contrary view was taken in Choithram Kaliandas V. Lalbux (5) following a similar decision of the same Court in Kidar Nath V. Ganesh Mal (6 ). The attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the fact that profits from assets are also assets being accretions. With all respect I am in agreement with the view taken by the Madras, Lahore and Bombay High Courts in the cases referred to above. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the appellate court and remand the case to the executing court with the direction that the crop shall be attached. The executing court shall then proceed to sell the crop but only the profits accruing to Ratna and Phagalia from the cultivation shall be applied to the satisfaction of the decree. All the legitimate expenses of cultivation shall be allowed to Ratna and Phagalia including wages of any labourers they may have employed. No allowance can however be made for their own labour in cultivating the land as what is to be determined is the profits accruing to them from the cultivation. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. . ;