Judgment :- 1. Could you attach the maintenance grant payable to the manager of an Aided School under S.9(3) of the Kerala Education Act, read with Chapter XXVIII of the Kerala Education Rules, in execution of a decree obtained against the school? I do not really understand what is meant by a decree against a school. The School prima facie is not a juristic entity and cannot be treated as a person against whom a decree could be passed. Somehow, such a decree appears to have been passed, although the 2nd defendant, qua manager, and the members constituting the educational agency also have been impleaded in the suit which resulted in such a decree. However, the decree itself was passed only against the school, 1st defendant, the manager being only the 2nd defendant. Now, in execution of that decree obtained by a former manager (the plaintiff), the maintenance grant payable to the manager is sought to be attached as if it were the property of the 1st defendant, the Aided School. 2. The question that falls for consideration therefore is whether the maintenance grant can be treated as a property of the school so that S.60 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply and attachment can be effected. The Courts below have directed attachment and the 2nd defendant manager challenges those judgments on the ground that the maintenance grant is in favour of the manager, 2nd defendant, and cannot therefore belong to the school as such and secondly the said grant is impressed with a trust under Chapter XXVIII of the Kerala Education Rules and cannot be treated as property which can be used by the manager for whatever purposes he likes, even if it were connected with the school. I am inclined to uphold both the objections. 3. As pointed out by me earlier, the decree is against the school and the execution is being levied against the school although I do not know how the school as such can hold property not being a juristic entity. The maintenance grant is definitely given to the manager who is a separate statutory entity. S.7 of the Kerala Education Act provides for the appointment of a manager of an Aided School, charges him with certain duties and responsibilities and empowers him with certain powers in relation to the management of the school. The maintenance grant is definitely given to the manager who is a separate statutory entity. S.7 of the Kerala Education Act provides for the appointment of a manager of an Aided School, charges him with certain duties and responsibilities and empowers him with certain powers in relation to the management of the school. In the Rules also, the manager has a statutory status coupled with powers and obligations. Therefore, the decree passed against the 1st defendant school cannot be executed against monies in the hands of the 2nd defendant manager who is a distinct and different statutory functionary although closely bound up with the institution itself. 4. Moreover, S.9(3) lays down that the Government may pay to the manager a maintenance grant in such manner as may be prescribed. The details regarding the nature of such grant, the purposes for which it is to be used, the obligations attaching to receipt of such grants are all laid down in Chapter XXVIII. The conditions under which maintenance grant may be given to an Aided School specifically stipulate the purposes for which alone such grant may be paid or used (Rule 3). The application for maintenance grant calls for a declaration from the manager in Form No. 29 about the correctness of the expenditure and the items for which the expenditure has been incurred. Form No. 30 prescribes the form of the bill for the maintenance grant and therein a certificate has to be appended by the controlling officer that the maintenance grant drawn for the year has been properly utilised for the purpose for which it was granted. R.9 enjoins upon educational officers during their visits or inspection to scruitinise the school accounts with special reference to the maintenance grants and their utilisation. R.10 states that the excess, if any, in the maintenance grant shall be adjusted towards such grant for the succeeding year and over-payments detected shall be made good by the manager. In fact, if the manager fails to utilise the maintenance grant for the purposes as specified in R.3, Government shall have the power to recover the same from him, using the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act (Rule 12) and the Director of Public Instruction may even withhold the grant if the rules are violated or for other relevant reasons. In fact, if the manager fails to utilise the maintenance grant for the purposes as specified in R.3, Government shall have the power to recover the same from him, using the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act (Rule 12) and the Director of Public Instruction may even withhold the grant if the rules are violated or for other relevant reasons. It is obvious from these obligations annexed to the grant that a confidence has been reposed in and accepted by the manager and it is not open to the manager to have plenary control thereon or power of disposal over it as he pleases even for purposes connected with the school but not covered by R.3. Undoubtedly, the discharge of the decree against the school in this case is not one of the purposes for which a maintenance grant can be utilised. 5. I therefore hold that the amount by way of maintenance grant is not available to be proceeded against by the decree holder in this case and allow these appeals and dismiss the execution petition insofar as it seeks to proceed against the maintenance grant payable by the Government to the management.