Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a decree-holder's appeal. The decree-holder filed suit No. 58 of 1954 for the recovery of Rs. 14,000 and odd from the assets of Saeedul Zafar in the hands of his heirs. All those heirs were impleaded as defendants. As some of them migrated to Pakistan, the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property in whom their interest in the assets had vested was also impleaded as defendant. The suit was contested by only four of the defendants including the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property and was ultimately decreed against the assets of Saeedul Zafar in the hands of the contesting defendants. The decree-holder put the decree in execution and prayed for the realisation of the amount of the decree by attachment and sale of the assets of the deceased in the hands of the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property, Muzaffarnagar. The Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property filed an objection to the application for execution. He contended that Section 17 of Act No. XXXI of 1950 was a bar to the application for execution. He also contended that the property being a composite property, the executing court could not separate the interests of the evacuees and the non-evacuees. That he contended, could be done only by the Competent Officer under Act No. 64 of 1951. He also suggested that the decree-holder should approach the Custodian for the satisfaction of her claim under R. 22 of the rules framed under Act No. XXXI of 1950.
(2.) The executing court by the order now under appeal held that Section 17 of the Evacuee Property Act provided an effective bar to the application for execution. It also pointed out that R. 22 referred to by the Custodian in his objection had been repealed. It therefore allowed the objection and dismissed the application for execution.
(3.) The decree-holder has come up in appeal and contends that the executing court was not justified in rejecting the execution application in toto.;