The right to recover the decree money from the immovable property of the judgment-debtor is a substantive right that cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment.

G. D. SAHGAL, J. : These three causes raise a common question of law. One of these, namely, Sec. 115 Application No. 86 of 1961 came up before our brother Gyanendra Kumar, but as the point raised was of general importance, he referred that case to a larger Bench. That case accordingly came up before us and along with it two other cases have also been placed. A similar point is involved in them also.

2. The case giving rise to Section 115 Application No. 86 of 1961 was filed in the Court of Small Causes, Lucknow, as Original Suit No. 335 of 1951. It was decreed on 29th April, 1952 by that Court. The decree was put in execution by means of Execution Application No. 4016 of 1955 wherein execution was prayed for by arrest and detention of the judgement-debtor in civil prison. The second attempt for execution was made by moving an application for transfer of the decree under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 19th November, 1958. An order was passed for the transfer of the decree on 28th November, 1958, but the transfer certificate seems to have been signed on the 9th of December, 1958. The decree was accordingly transferred to the Court of the Munsif, Haveli, where an application was moved for execution on the 27th of February, 1960. Execution was sought by attachment and sale of immovable property. An objection was filed against the execution, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 5th of May 1960. The only ground to which objection was confined was that of limitation. The learned Munsif, however, did not deal with that plea but allowed the objection holding that the decree was not executable by sale of immovable property and ordered the record to be consigned. Against that order the decree-holder filed an appeal which came up before the Civil Judge, Lucknow. The Civil Judge, however, held that the decree could be executed by attachment and sale of immovable property and he allowed the appeal directing the learned Munsif to restore the execution application and the miscellaneous case to their original numbers and to deal with them according to law; so the point of limitation still remained to be considered. It is against that order of the learned Civil Judge that the application under Sec. 115 No. 66 of 1961 has been filed and which our brother Gyanendra Kumar has referred to a larger Bench.

3. In the second execution of Second Appeal No. 1 of 1961 also the decree was of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Gonda, passed on the 29th October, 1953. The decree was transferred to the Civil Judge and the decree-holder applied for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. The learned Civil Judge held that the execution was not maintainable and he struck off the execution. The decree-holder made an appeal to the District Judge who dismissed the appeal by his order dated the 17th October, 1960. It is against that order that this appeal has been directed.

4. In the second execution of Decree Appeal No. 5 of 1964, the decree of the Judge, Small Causes, was passed on the 27th August, 1953. It was transferred to the Munsiff and the one-fourth share of the judgement-debtor in a house was attached and sold. The decree-holder himself purchased the property and the sale was confirmed on 10th of October 1960. Possession was delivered to the decree-holder through Court on the 21st of September, 1961. On the 27th October, 1961 however, the judgement-debtor made an application for restoration of possession on the ground that the sale was a nullity inasmuch as immovable property could not be attached in execution of the decree of a Small Cause Court. The objection was upheld by the learned Munsif who set aside the sale directing the decree-holder to deliver back possession to the judgement-debtor. The decree-holder went up in appeal which was heard by the Civil Judge who dismissed it. It is against that order of the Civil Judge in appeal that this appeal has been filed.

5. The onl