PREM POORAN DEVI Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's appeal. Two questions have been argued before us. The judgment-debtor applied under Sec. 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act and the necessary orders were passed under Sec. 6 of that Act. In respect of a debt incurred subsequent to the passing of the order under Section 6, the appellant obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor. She got the decree executed and wanted to have a receiver appointed in respect of a grove of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor objected to it on the ground that under Sec. 7 Cl. (2) of the Encumbered Estates Act it was not open to the decree-holder to proceed against that grove in execution. He also pleaded that on an earlier objection of his, the grove had been ordered to be released and the decree-holder was not entitled to have the matter reopened. The objection of the judgment-debtor was allowed by the order now under appeal. The order covered another point about the amount of a cheque also. But that portion of the order is not being questioned before us.

(2.) The two points urged on behalf of the appellant were (1) that Sec. 7, Cl. (2) did not bar the appointment of a receiver against the property of the judgment-debtor and (2) that Sec. 7(2) of the Encumbered Estates Act was ultra vires as it contravened Art. 19 of the Constitution.

(3.) Both these points are clearly untenable. Sec. 7 (2) reads like this: