A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a decree-holders' appeal. The decree holders obtained three decrees against the judgment-debtors under Section 4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The decrees were transmitted in the usual course to the Collector for liquidation. After the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, the judgment-debtors made an application that the amounts of the decrees be reduced in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The Special Judge accepted the request and has reduced the amounts of those three decrees. The decree-holders question the correctness of the order by the present appeal. A preliminary objection has been raised by the office that the appeal does not lie and that the order in question could only be revised. This objection has been pressed on behalf of the judgment-debtors also. The order in question has been passed by the Special Judge. Every order of Special Judge is appealable under Section 45 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. This order too was, therefore, appealable. The office as well as learned counsel for the respondents are, therefore, not correct in their submission that no appeal lay.
(2.) Another objection raised is that the appeal could not be filed as an execution appeal. This appears to be correct. The matter did not relate to execution. The application for the reduction of the amounts of the decrees under the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act had been made not to the executing Court but to the Court which had passed the decrees. The Special Judge was the Court which had passed the decrees. The application could not, therefore, be treated as an application in connection with the execution. The appellants were, therefore, not correct in describing the present appeal as an Execution First Appeal. The correct description would have been First Appeal From Order. We have, therefore, treated the appeal as a First Appeal From Order.
(3.) A number of contentions have been urged in support of the appeal but it is not necessary to consider all of them. The contention, which, in our opinion, has great force and is enough for the disposal of the appeal, is that the only provision of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act under which the amounts of decrees could be reduced was Sec. 4. That section did not apply to these decrees as it applied only to decrees under which some property was charged. The decrees passed in the present appeal were simple money decrees as only simple decrees could have been passed by the Special Judge under Section 14 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act in view of sub-sec. (7) of that section. No properties thus stood charged under the decrees and that being so, Sec. 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act could not apply and no reduction could be ordered. It is conceded that there is no other provision of that Act under which any reduction could have been ordered.;