JUDGMENT
Jwala Prasad, J.
1. There does not seem to be any substance in this appeal. The Jatri Bahis of the judgment debtor are evidently not saleable. They contain merely entries as to the names and addresses of the pilgrims who deal with the judgment-debtor and as such they can be used only by him in cider to perform personal service to the pilgrims. The entries in the bocks also enable the judgment debtor to claim that the pilgrims mentioned therein or their family members and relations should utilise the service of the judgment-debtor while visiting Gaya on religious pilgrimage. Therefore, these books embody the right or claim of the judgment debtor of personal service. Beyond that the book is of no use, and as a record of the claims of personal service they seem to come well within Clause (f) of Section 60 as property not capable of attachment or sale in execution of a decree. These books are, no doubt, as held in the case between the parties in Lachman Lal Pathak v. Baldeo Lal Thathwari 42 Ind Cas. 478 : 2 P. L. J. 705 : 3 P. L. W. 136 : (1918) Pat 50. stock-in trade and appertain to the gaddi of the Gayawal judgment-debtor who tarries on the office or business of a Gayawal, namely, priest to the pilgrims who visit Gaya on pilgrimage. The contention of the learned Vakil on behalf of the appellant that, as there books have been held in the aforesaid case between the parties as valuable assets and as such heritable, they must be deemed to be attachable also. I do not think there is any force in this contention. The priestly office may be and is generally heritable, but is not saleable or attachable for that reason.
2. Then it is contended that these particular books have got marketable price, and it is singly urged that the fact that the decree-holder-appellant is willing to pay fancy price for them, they must be held to be saleable in the present case. That obviously is no criterion to determine whether a particular article is saleable or not. In the present case it is certainly not, for behind this anxiety to purchase the Bahis there is the previous litigation between the same parties in which these books along with the Gayawali Gaddi in question were claimed by the decree-holder as well as by the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder was not given the Bahis and now he wants to seize the Bahis in execution of his decree in order to deprive the judgment debtor of his right of enjoying the benefit of the office by means of these books.
3. Agreeing with the views of the Court below I dismiss the appeal with Coats.
Bucknill, J.
4. I agree.