Mazhar Ali Khan vs Mahfuz Hasan

As we are in agreement with the findings of fast and the proposition of law enunciated by Mr. Justice Walsh*, we can dismiss this appeal with very few words. The decree holder wished to attach and sell a pension. It was his duty, if his case was that the pension belonged to that class which are referred to in Section 7 of Act XXIII of 1871 to set out the facts and to prove his case. He did not do so. No body, even to day, knows whether the pension was granted prior to the Act of 1871 or subsequent to it. Nevertheless, it has been argued here very strenuously that the executions-creditor did all that Was necessary and that he is entitled to attach and sell the pension. He has not proved any right to attach and sell the pension. There is no reason to infer that it was granted before 1871 nor is there any reason to infer that it was granted after 1871, The matter is entirely open. A pension ordinarily is not attachable for sale. If the decree-holder wanted to bring this within the exception and show that this individual pension happened to be attachable for tale, he should have done so by appropriate proof. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs and fees on the higher seale.