1. This second appeal raises two nice questions relating to the law of execution. The decree is one passed on foot of a hypothecation bond executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the decree directed realization of the amount by sale of the hypotheca and personally from the two defendants. While the decree was being executed, but before any amount was realized thereunder, Defendant 1 died and the decree-holder (respondent herein) brought the present appellant and his younger brother on the record as legal representatives. The appellant disputed the right of the decree holder to sell certain items comprised in the hypotheca on the ground that under a partition arrangement evidenced by Ext. 1, dated 1.8.1100, Defendant 1 had divested himself of all interests in those items and that his (the appellant's) younger brother and himself had long become the absolute owners thereof when the suit was brought ten years afterwards in 1100. Accordingly it was contended that the northern one-half of item 1 and items 2 to 5 of the decree could not be proceeded against in execution as the decree-holder obtained the decree without the real owners of those items on the record. The execution Cou