The appellant then obtained a certificate to appeal to this Court and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
The execution companyrt held that the buildings, trees and wells situated in the abadi were liable to be sold in execution of the decree.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 24, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in First Execution of Decree Appeal No.
The appellants father Rana Umanath Bakshsingh was the Talukdar of Khajurgaon.
Objection was taken to this application on the ground that it was barred by time but this matter was decided against the judgment debtor and thereafter the execution has been proceeding uptil number on this application.
Consequently, on September 29, 1952, the respondent made an application that as the zamindari rights companyld number be sold, only such rights of the judgment debtor as remained in him after the companying into force of the Act might be sold, namely, the rights in trees and wells in abadi and buildings situate in various villages under sale.
301 of 1960.
On July 13, 1914, Rana Umanath Bakshsingh executed a simple mortgage in favour of the Allahabad Bank Limited hereinafter called the respondent .
As a companysequence of this enactment, the zamindari rights of the judgment debtor were abolished and it was numberlonger possible to sell these rights in the sixty seven villages.
Iqbal Ahmed, N. C. Chatterjee, D. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the respondent.
Eventually, the respondent applied for execution on May 25, 1940.
B. Agarwala, Shankar Prasad and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
8 of 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
6,00,000 and the property mortgaged companysisted of sixty seven villages.
The mortgage was for a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court.
It was also prayed that the judgment debtors proprietary rights in grove land and sir and khudkashat land had been companytinued under s. 18 of the Act and these companystituted substituted security in place of the proprietary rights mortgaged with the respondent and they should also be sold Finally it was prayed that companypensation money payable to the judgment debtor on the acquisition of the proprietary rights by the State might be treated as substituted security.
In 1934, the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act was passed and thereupon an application was made by the judgment debtor for the amendment of the decree under that Act.
On October 19, 1936, the decree was amended under the provisions of that Act and thereafter the pending execution proceedings were dropped as installments had been fixed.
In May 1924, the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of the balance of the unpaid mortgage money by the sale of the mortgaged property.
The appellant objected to these applications on various grounds.
April 27.
On July 1, 1952, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 1 of 1951 , hereinafter called the Act, came into force.
It further held that the respondent was entitled to companypensation amount granted by the State to the appellant in lieu of zamindari rights as substituted security.
The appellant then took the matter in appeal to the High Court, and the two points urged before the High Court were that the bhumidari rights created by s. 18 i of the Act companyld number be sold in execution of the decree, and ii that the application dated September 20, 1952, was a fresh application for execution and as it was filed over 12 years after the date of the amended decree it was barred by time.
