RAM PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. HOSHIARA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of execution proceedings.

(2.) A decree upon a secured debt was obtained by the decree-holder and in execution of the decree he took proceedings for attachment and sale of rehabilitation grant bonds belonging to the judgment debtor. It is not disputed that the decree-holder could proceed in satisfaction of his decree against these bonds to the extent of three fourths of the rehabilitation grant. The only question is whether the amount of satisfaction to be entered against the decree will be the face value of these bonds or will be the amount realised on sale thereof.

(3.) The lower appellate court has held that it is the face value of the bonds which indicates the amount for which the decree must be deemed to have been satisfied, and reliance has been placed in this behalf on rule 98 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Rule 98 provides for the action to be taken by the Rehabilitation Grants Officer when a court or authority, under Sec. 70 if the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, requires him to place at its disposal the amount of rehabilitation grant payable to an intermediary and clause (b) of Rule 98 states that the bonds shall in every case be obtained in the name of the intermediary concerned and that the court or authority will endorse the bonds in favour of the decree-holder where necessary.