SHANKARLAL Vs. ONKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of execution proceedings of a money decree held by the respondents against the appellant. It appears that in one of the earlier execution proceedings of the decree an agreement was arrived at between the parties where under it was agreed that the decrial amount would be payable in certain instalments and a charge for the payment of the amount would subsist against his other landed property also. On 11th February, 1952 the decree -holder filed an application for execution of his decree in the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain. The judgment -debtor objected to the execution application stating that as the Zamindari properly had vested in the State, the decree -holder was not entitled to execute the decree from the compensation payable In respect of Zamindari property against which a charge had been created; and that the decree -holder could not also proceed against other properly of the judgment debtor. In the meantime the judgment -debtor made an application before the Claims Officer under Sec. 18 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The Claims Officer issued a direction to the executing Court to stay the execution proceedings before him. This direction was made by the Claims Officer under Sec. 19 of the Zaminadari Abolition Act. Accordingly the proceedings were stayed by the executing Court. It is against this order of the Executing Court that the present appeal is directed.

(2.) THE argument of Mr. Chafekar, learned Counsel for the appellant, was that under Sec. 19, a direction could be made only with regard to secured debts' and that the decretal debt here was not a secured debt within the meaning of Sec. 16(a) of the Act. It was said that under the definition of Secured debt' given in Sec. 16(a) a debt for the payment of which a charge had been created by a decree or in execution proceedings, was not a secured debt, and that in any case there was no bar to the realisation of the decretal amount from other property belonging to the judgment -debtor. There is no substance in this appeal and it must be dismissed.

(3.) FOR all these reasons this appeal is dismissed with costs.