Personal covenant with charge and vested interest rules confirm execution against attachable property interest.

A compromise decree that imposes an express personal liability and also creates a charge over specified properties ordinarily gives the decree-holder cumulative remedies; the charge and receiver mechanism are additional, not a condition precedent to execution on the personal covenant. On vested and contingent interests, the controlling test is the settlor's intention gathered from the whole deed. Where the document earmarks property for beneficiaries immediately but postpones enjoyment or subjects it to payment of debts and other burdens, the interest is vested with deferred possession, not contingent. On that basis, the judgment-debtor's interest, including in premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road, was attachable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree-holder was entitled to pursue the personal remedy under the compromise decree without first exhausting the charged properties; (ii) whether the judgment-debtor's interest under the trust deed, including in premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road, was vested or contingent and therefore attachable.

Issue (i): Whether the decree-holder was entitled to pursue the personal remedy under the compromise decree without first exhausting the charged properties.

Analysis: The compromise decree conferred an express personal liability to pay the monthly allowance and also created a charge over specified properties. Reading the relevant clauses together, the charge and the receiver remedy were found to be optional and additional, not exclusive. Nothing in the wording made resort to the charged properties a condition precedent to execution on the personal obligation.

Conclusion: The objection failed. The decree-holder could execute the decree personally without first exhausting the charged properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the judgment-debtor's interest under the trust deed, including in premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road, was vested or contingent and therefore attachable.

Analysis: The nature of the interest was held to depend on the intention gathered from the whole trust deed, applying the principles underlying the law on vested and contingent interests. The deed earmarked specific lots for the sons, restricted enjoyment during the settlor's lifetime and until debts were discharged, but did not make the sons' title depend on the uncertain event of debt liquidation. The provision for devolution on the sons' heirs, the scheme of monthly payments, and the allocation of surplus income all supported a vested interest with postponed enjoyment. As to premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road, the additional obligation to provide alternative accommodation restricted enjoyment further, but did not convert the interest into a contingent one.

Conclusion: The interest was vested and not contingent, and it was attachable.

Final Conclusion: The execution objections were untenable, and the decree-holder's claim to proceed against the judgment-debtor's attachable interest was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a document shows an immediate beneficial allocation of property but postpones enjoyment or imposes burdens to be worked out from the income, the interest is vested and not contingent unless the intention to postpone vesting itself is clear and definite; likewise, a charge created alongside an express personal covenant ordinarily provides an additional remedy and does not exclude execution on the personal liability.

---