Parasuram kesavacharyulu and Another vs Venugopalaswamy Varu.

Bhimasankaram, J.—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. 9-85-1/2 cents in extent which they obtained in a compromise between them and the trustee by which it was agreed that the half of the land belonging to the deities should be in the possession of (.be 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 each 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 & that the aromas and their successors in office ell''s remained possession of those properties continue to perform the services Clause the archakas and their successors In of the do meet the paditharam and other expenses with the income of the property allotted as per para 1 supra to the extent of a income and that they be at liberty to retain remaining half of the income as their remuneration.

The trustee as already stated, has now attached the crops standing on the land in the possession of the archaka in execution of the decree. The Appellants contend that, so far as that 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, they claim that it is exempt from attachment either under Clause (h) or Clause (i) of Section 60(1), CPC Section 60(1) CPC so far as is material .may be quoted.

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, namely:

(h) the wages of laborers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind;

(i) Salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees and one-half of the remainder;

The question for decision so far as the latter claim is concerned is, whether the crop which the Appellants are entitled'' to enjoy can be described as ''the wages of laborers and 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 laborers and artisans (Per Grove J., Gordon v. Jennings (1882) 51 LJ QB 417 (A).

This is followed by an extract of a dictum of Bramwell B in these terms:

Wallet definition one gives to the term wages a portion of what the Plaintiff here gets is "profits" made and makeable by the employment v. other (people under him. IT a portion 1:1 that, the whole is not wages.

In Wharton''s Law Lexicon wage is defined as the compensation agreed upon by a master to be paid to a servant or any other person hired of work or business for him. In the light of these divisions, a labourer is, it seems to us. one who earns his daily bread by personal manual labour or in occupations which require little or no art, skill or educational preparation.

We do not think that an archaka of a temple can be appropriately described as a labourer in this sense. Nor can the profits which he derives after investment of labour and) capital be appropriately called "wages" within the meaning of these definitions. An archaka is clearly not a domestic servant. So, the exemption claimed by the Appellants under Clause (h) is, to our mind, clearly unsustainable.

It does not seem to us either that the profits so derived could appropriately be called1 salary''. It is to be noted that, while- in regard to wages they are stated to be exempt ''whether payable in money or in kind'', in regard to salary there is no such clause. It is, therefore, manifest that what is comprehended by the term ''salary'' as used in Clause (1) is only a money payment The very terms of the exemption stating that salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees one half of the remainder only is exempt make this clear. Clause (6) of the decree in Appeal No, 496 of 1045 quoted in the earlier part of this judgment refers to this portion of the income as ''''remuneration''. As Blackburn J., says in the ''ouccn v. Post Master-General (1876) 1 QBD 658 (B).

If a man gives his services, whatever consideration he gets for giving his services seems to me a remuneration for them

In that case, an employee''s receipt of boarding and lodging was treated as pair, of his remuneration. The crop grown on tin; land can be converted into money or can be appropriated directly by enjoyment. It is not money by itself. So, we hold that the half share of the crop to be enjoyed by the Appellants by wav of remuneration for their services is neither "wages nor salary The claim for exemption of this ground must. therefore, be rejected.

As regards the other half of the crop which, according to the terms of the compromise decree, is to be used to meet ''paditharam and other expenses connected with the income of the property allotted! to the Appellants'', it seems to us that the trustee is not acting properly in seeking attachment of a part of the crop which is to be used for divine service.

In reality, he in attaching property in the hands of the archaka s in trust ofr use in''(ho temples which, in .accordance with usage. no doubt, comes back to the arenas for persons) cnioymptit after such user. It comes, therefore, to this, that the trustee of the deities has attached in their.

But it cannot be said that the property as cannot be attached u/s 60 CPC ( no statutory prohibition m egarcl to such mi attachment.

It is true that our learned brother Chii Reddy J. has held in The Madras and Southern Maharattah Railway Vs. Chengali Sydalli and Another, (C), following'' Bench decision of the Lahore High LJ 4 ''Preni Prakash v. MohanlaL, AIR 11143 l.sa'' (V''U) mid a decision of the Usual. II Court in ''Post Master General, Bombay v. its mal Mayachand'', AIR 1941 Bom 389 (E) that provisions of Section 10, CPC are mandatory, Ir4 is not open to the judgment-debtor to waive privilege granted to him there under in the pi interest and that even a garnishee could of attention of the Court to the provision CPC .and object to an attachment prolix by that Section.

In Allot 1043 Lah 268 (PB) (D) with to the exemption of salary of Public, railway Municipal servants from .attachment it v. served as follows:

The obvious intention of the was, so far as I can see, that these public c! or servants (which form broadly speaking the servants of a railway company and law throaty) should be permitted to continue to charge their duties satisfactorily in without being distressed by the idea would get nothing after working for month and that they would not be constable to maintain themselves or those wheat were out of affection or in duty bound to suit It is not easy to see how a person oppressed the idea that he would not be able to himself or his family with means of suit can discharge his duties properly and feely.

But, as we have already said, Section 69, CPC does not apply to this part of the attach in dispute. If the beneficiary so to say. All property in trust for him as property blurt the trustee himself, it is difficult to suit objection could be sustained on behalf of the tee.

It may, in the circumstances of the cases a breach of trust on the part of the dcertrristee as it is perfectly clear the of attaching'' that part of the crop v. utilised for ''paditharam'' may be to deities of the services due to them. But a matter be raised by nersonsirlcres Proper performance of such services.

That being BO, this appeal fails missed with costs.