BAIJNATH Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal comes to us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge. It is an Execution Appeal.

(2.) THE appellant, Baijnath, obtained a decree against the property of the deceas ed Ram Charan in the hands of the respon dents, the judgment-debtors. Thereafter the appellant put the decree in execution by at tachment and sale of a holding. The hold ing was held by Ram Charan as a sirdar under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinbelow called the Act). After his death it was inherited by the judgment-debtors. They later acquired the rights of a bhumidhar in the holding by depositing the requisite amount of money for acquiring the said rights. Presumably the amount was deposited by them from their own pocket, for there is no finding that the amount which they deposited was inherited by them from Ram Charan.

(3.) SECTION 52 (1) Code of Civil Pro cedure provides that where a decree is pass ed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, and the decree is for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the attachment and sale of any such property. The deceased debtor was the sirdar of the holding. It was not a property liable to at tachment and sale. Section 153 of the Act provides that except as expressly permitted y the Act the interest of a sirdar shall not be transferable. It further provides that in certain circumstances sirdar may make a simple mortgage of his holding or may gift it to an educational institution. But for these two exceptions a Sirdar cannot trans fer his holding. As the interest of the de ceased-debtor was not transferable, it is not possible to say that the bhumidhari interest which the judgment-debtors have acquired by depositing money from their own pocket is the property of the deceased in their hands. Bhumidhari right is a new right (Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., 1961 All LJ 716 .== (AIR 1961 SC 1790).)