1. The appellants obtained a money decree against Ramkrishna, and in execution attached his jotishi vritti on three occasions. In 1380 the profits for the year seem to have been appropriated towards the discharge of the debt. In 1883 the sons of Ramkrishna intervened, and procured the release of three-eighths of the profits from attachment. Then in 1884 the plaintiffs attached the whole right of Ramkrishna as joshi, treating it as a thing in commerce and subject to sale under the execution against him. The District Judge has held it was not subject to sale, and no case exactly opposed to this decision has been cited. Probably the most correct view of vrittis under the Hindu law would be to regard them as generally extra commercium, but it does not seem necessary to resort to that principle. Section 266(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been construed by the Courts as meaning that the right to take certain emoluments as the reward for personal service is not liable to attachment-Ganesh Ramchandra Date v. Shankar Ramchandra I.L.R., 10 Bom., 395. The right of the vyvahara Joshi is of this character Steele’s L.C., 83, 84; and even though he may have authority in some cases to name a gumasta, or substitute, that does not imply that he can be forced to do so, still less that in consequence his rights are alienable by a forced sale under a decree. We, therefore, confirm the decree of the District Court with costs.