Agarwala, J.:— This is a judgment-debtors appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The property which was sought to be attached in execution of the decree was the Bhumidhari rights now recorded in the name of the judgment-debtors. The decree was against the assets of the deceased Jamaluddin in the hands of the judgment-debtors. Jamaluddin owned certain zamindari property including sir and khudkasht plots. He died and the appellants against whom the decree was passed as legal representatives of the deceased Jamaluddin Khan inherited the zamindari property and the sir and khudkasht plots. On coming into force of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the appellants lost the zamindari property, but became Bhumidhars of the sir and khudkasht plots. The decree-holder wanted to sell in execution of his decree the Bhumidhari rights recorded in the names of the appellants. Two questions were raised—firstly, that the Bhumidhari holding was not the assets of Jamaluddin in the hands of the appellants and, secondly, that under the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the Bhumidhari rights were not capable of being sold in execution of a decree. Both these contentions were repelled by the court below and this appeal has been brought against that order. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal.
2. The sir and khudkasht was undoubtedly the property of Jamaluddin Khan which was inherited by the appellants as the heirs of the deceased. By reason of a change in the law the sir and khudkasht rights were converted into Bhumidhari rights.
3. The mere fact that the law has made a change in the nature of the rights which the appellants had acquired as heirs of the, deceased, does not mean that the property which has come into the hands of the appellants as heirs of the deceased has ceased to be the assets of the deceased. It still remains the assets of the deceased although the characteristics of the property have, to some extent been altered by law.
4. Sec. 152 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act lays down that Bhumidhari rights are transferable subject to certain restrictions. Reliance has been placed upon Sec. 154 of the Act as containing those restrictions. Sec. 154 is in these terms:—
“No Bhumidbar shall have the right to transfer, by sale or gift any land to any person (other than an institution established for charitable purpose) where such person shall, as a result of the sale or gift, became entitled to land which together with “land, if any, held by himself or together with his family will, in the aggregate exceed 30 acres in the Uttar Pradesh.”
5. This section deafly restricts the transferable rights of a Bhumidbar to this extent only that a Bhumidbar cannot make a voluntary transfer of his Bhumidhari interests by sale or gift to a person where such person would own more than 30 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh, if he makes the purchase. A person who, after the purchase will own less than 30 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh may very well acquire Bhumidhari land by means of sale or gift. There is, therefore, no restriction for a sale or a gift being made by a Bhumidhar to a person who does not fall under the category of persons mentioned under Sec. 154. It is doubtful whether the restriction contained in Sec. 154 is applicable to an execution sale. But assuming that an execution sale must comply with the provisions of Sec. 154, the execution sale will be restricted to persons who do not fall within the mischief of Sec. 154. There is, therefore, no basis for saying that Bhumidhari rights cannot be sold in execution of a decree at all.
6. There is no force in this appeal. We dismiss it under Order 41, Rule 11, C.P.C
7. Appeal dismissed.