JUDGMENT Sale, J. - In this case an application was made to me on behalf of certain annuitants under the Will of Kanai Lal Seal for an order for payment to them of certain monies directed to be set apart to the separate account of the annuitants who are the children of Sreemuty Soccoomari Dassi and the applicants ask that the order for payment should be in modification of the order of the 4th September 1900 and that it might be declared that the prohibitory orders in suits Nos. 224 of 1904 and 225 of 1904 both dated the 12th September 1905 do not affect the said allowances payable to the applicants. The ground of the application is that the monies payable to the applicants standing to their credit in the separate account were not monies which could be attached under the prohibitory orders referred to and that the prohibitory orders should accordingly be set aside as also a further order, dated the 18th May 1906, which was an ex parte order directing the transfer of the monies attached under the prohibitory orders to the credit of the suit in which the prohibitory orders had been issued. 2. It was contended that the monies payable to the applicants constituted a right to future maintenance within the meaning of the words of sec. 266 of the C.P. C., and reference was made to the proceedings had in the present suit under which the annuities given to the applicants under the Will of Kanai Lal Seal were directed to be set apart in a separate account in favor of the applicants. Now I have looked through the Will of Kanai and the other proceeding had in the present suit and can see nothing which would justify the Court in holding that this money came within the words "right to future maintenance." The gift in question was a gift to the sons of the daughter of the testator and is described in the Will as a monthly allowance and is treated as such in the proceedings in suit. They are not in any sense monies given to the applicants by virtue of any right to maintenance the applicants possessed. They are not in any sense monies given to the applicants by virtue of any right to maintenance the applicants possessed. It was simply a gift made by the testator in their favor from the testator's bounty and therefore they must be taken as annuities which the applicants are entitled to deal with by way of charge, transfer or assignment and are as such attachable under sec. 266, and in so holding I follow a decision of Mr. Justice Trevelyan in the case of Sree Nath Roy v. Brojendra Bhusan Chatterjee 10 C.W.N. 1102, foot note (1892) on an application made for the purpose of attaching an annuity to which the Defendant was entitled under a Will. That annuity to which the Defendant was entitled, the learned Judge held, did not come within "a right to future maintenance" under sec. 266. This is an unreported decision and is dated the 27th July 1892. It seems if the prohibitory orders were right the order directing the transfer of the monies to the credit of the creditor's suit is also right and as this order cannot be interfered with, the result is that the application must be refused with costs.