D.K Mahajan, J.:— This execution first appeal is directed against the order of the executing Court allowing objections by the male lineal descendants of the judgment debtor. The decree for Rs. 12,000/- was passed against the descendants of Hardit Singh against his assets in their hands. In execution of this decree the decreeholder attached the house and the land in dispute. Objections were raised by the descendants of Hardit Singh to the attachment on the ground of section 9 of the Debtors' Protection (Punjab) Act, 1936. These objections have been allowed by the executing Court. Hence the present appeal.
2. The first contention of Mr. Puran Chand is that the land and the house were not the ancestral property of Hardit Singh. I have gone through the evidence and find that this contention is not well-founded. It was clearly stated in the written statement that the house was ancestral. In this view of the matter, no argument is open regarding the non-ancestral nature of the house.
3. Regarding the land, the Jamabandi papers produced show that the land was held by Jawahar Singh, father of Hardit Singh, and on his death it had devolved on Hardit Singh and then on the objectors. Therefore the land has been rightly held to be ancestral property.
4. The second contention of Mr. Puran Chand is that the provisions of section 9 of the Punjab Debtors' Protection Act were not applicable to Pepsu until 1961, when, they were made applicable for the first time. Therefore the property in dispute could be sold in execution of the decree. This contention has no force. The property is sought to be put to sale after section 9 of the Act had come into force. Thus the protection of S. 9 will be available to the respondents. In any case section 9 is nothing but the restatement of the customary law in a codified form as it prevailed before it was enacted. Even if section 9 is ruled out on the contention of Mr. Puran Chand, it would make no difference because according to the general customary law governing the parties the ancestral immovable property could not be attached and sold in the hands of the successor-in-interest of the original holder to satisfy the unsecured debts of the previous judgment-debtors. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Full Bench in Bahadur Chand v. Mt. Daulat . A.I.R 1944 Lah. 569. and also to the decision in Hans Raj Basant Ram v. Dhanwant Singh Balwant Singh . A.I.R 1961 Punj. 510.. Therefore the second contention also fails.
5. The third contention of the learned counsel is that at the time when the property was attached, the rule of succession was not under the customary law because by that time the Hindu Succession Act had come into force and the customary law had been abrogated. This contention loses sight of the fact that Hardit Singh died in 1954 and at that time the Hindu Succession Act was not in existence. The property was inherited by the sons under the customary law. Therefore the sons succeeded to the property along with the immunity that is enjoyed under the customary law, namely, that it could not be sold for the satisfaction of the debts of the previous judgment-debtors, it being ancestral property in the hands of his descendants. The Hindu Succession Act does not operate retrospectively, nor does it make past transactions invalid, nor does it take away the immunity that attached to the property before it came into force. For these reason this contention must also fail.
6. The appeal fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
7. Appeal dismissed.