(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Dist. J. of Muzaffarpur reversing that of the Subordinate Judge of the same place in an execution proceeding.
(2.) In order to appreciate the points in controversy between the parties, it is necessary to state the following facts. The D. H.-resp. obtained a decree for money against Ghanshyam-Lal in the Munsif's Court at Mahaban in the district of Agra. The decretal amount is over four thousand rupees. The D. H. got the decree transferred to the Muzaffarpur Court with a view to executing the same in that Court by attachment & sale of a proprietary interest in village Gaibipur Ranjitpur, tauzi No 19770. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the J. D., Ghanshyam, died. One of the points in controversy between the parties in the Court below was as to whether he died on 20-11-1944, as alleged by the D. H., or on 22-8-1944, as alleged by the J. D's alleged legal representative. That controversy is now closed, as both the Courts below have found that the D. H's allegations in this respect are correct. On the death of the J. D., the sons of Ghanshyam & his brothers' sons, one of whom, Damodar Lal. son of Dwarka Nath, who is the objector, appellant in this Court, were brought on the record by the transferee Court.
(3.) The objections raised by the appellant in the executing Court were (1) that the transferee Court had no jurisdiction to make an order for substitution in place of the deceased J. D.; (2) that the property sought to be proceeded against in execution of the decree by the D. H. was the property of the objector-appellant, to the extent of twelve annas & the remaining four annas belonged to Madho Lal, the son of Shyam Sunder deceased, another brother of Ghanshyam, the J. D.; & (3) that the execution was barred by limitation on the ground that the J. D. had died on 22-8-1944, that is to say, before the application for transfer of the decree was made in the Court which passed the decree.