1. This is an appeal against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Santhal Pergunnahs, affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghur, allowing an attachment of the rents and profits due to a certain Ghatwal, the judgment-debtor, on account of his Ghatwali estate.
2. The decree-holders, who are the respondents before us, obtained a decree for money against the Ghatwal, and in execution of that decree they prayed that the rents and profits that may be due to the Ghatwal minus the wages payable to chowkidars and other outgoings should be attached and placed in the hands of a Receiver. It does not, however, appear that the Subordinate Judge made any order for the appointment of a Receiver; and it seems to us that, if a Receiver had been appointed, the objection (which we shall presently mention) that has now been raised before us could not have been raised. But the order that that officer made was simply to this effect: Let a prohibitory order issue to the Ghatwal not to receive any rents and profits from the raiyats, and also to the raiyats not to pay their rents to the Ghatwal.
3. This order, which was affirmed on appeal, has now been appealed against by the judgment-debtor; and it is contended on his behalf that what has been done by the Subordinate Judge and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner is to ‘attach future rents and profits; and that this could not be done under the law. As we have already said, if the Subordinate Judge had made the order in terms of the application of the decree-holders and appointed a Receiver to take charge of the rents and profits as they fall due from time to time, no difficulty would arise; but difficulty may arise from the terms of the order of the Subordinate Judge, to which we have just referred. It is quite possible that the Subordinate Judge by his order meant to direct that, as the rents and profits fall due, they would stand attached; but, as it is, we are not quite sure, that this is what the Subordinate Judge meant by his order. In this connection we may refer the Subordinate Judge, not only to the case, which Mr. Fisher, the late Deputy Commissioner, has cited in his judgment (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 873.–Rep, but also to the case of Haridas Acharjia Chowdhry v. Baroda Kishore Acharjia Chowdhry (1899) I.L.R. 27 Cal. 38, as showing that future rents and profits, as such, cannot be attached, and we might here add the practical effect of the order of the Subordinate Judge is that, the Ghatwal, being prevented from recovering the rents and profits in future, would not be in a position to pay the wages of the chowkidars, and so to perform the duty which devolves upon him as Ghatwal. We think, however, that, if a proper application is made to the Subordinate Judge by the decree-holders for the appointment of a Receiver, that officer will consider the propriety of making such appointment; and in that case, there will be no difficulty in the Receiver receiving the rents and profits as they fall due from time to time, and making provisions for the payment of the wages of the chowkidars and other incidental expenses.
4. With these observations we send back the case to the Subordinate Judge. We make no order as to costs.