JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Jhansi refusing to set aside two alienations made by the insolvent after adjudication on the ground that this particular property does not vest in the receiver. The learned District Judge's order is so brief as to hardly amount to a judgment at all. He does not specify the nature of the property or give any reasons why it does not vest. He merely refers to a previous order of his which was passed on an application to prosecute the insolvent u/s 69 and which has no bearing on this question. From other papers on the record, however, it appears that the property is property to which the provisions of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act of 1903 apply. The appellant before us is the principal creditor of the insolvent. The learned District Judge relied on Section 16 of the Bundlekhand Alienation of Land Act which says that no land belonging to a member of an agricultural tribe shall be sold in execution of any decree made after the commencement of this Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides that the property vesting in the receiver shall not include any property which is exempted by any enactment for the time being in force from liability to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The appellant relies on two decisions of the Punjab High Court Sardarni Datar Kuar v. Ram Rattan (1920) 1 Lah. 192 and Mauji v. Girdhari Lal AIR 1921 Lah. 44. In the latter of these cases the learned Judges held that notwithstanding a similar provision in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, property of this kind did vest in the receiver. With all respect we are unable to follow the reasoning of this judgment. If we ask the question, could this property have been attached and sold in execution of a Civil Court decree? The answer, in view of Section 16 of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act, must be 'No.' It follows, therefore, that this is property which is exempted from attachment and sale within the meaning of Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. We are, therefore, unable to accept this appeal which we accordingly dismiss. We make no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented.

Sulaiman, J.

2. I agree and would only like to add a few words with regard to the rulings that have been cited. The case of Nagindas Bhukandas v. Ghelabhai Gulabdas (1919) 44 Bom. 673 is not directly in point because in that case the question turned on the express provisions of Section 4 of the Provident Funds Act (No. IX of 1897) which make the deposit not liable to attachment and say that the receiver will neither be entitled to it nor have any claim on it. Similarly the case of Sagar Mal v. Rao Girraj Singh (1916) 39 All. 120 may be said to be not directly in point because there the question was whether the occupancy holding vested in the receiver. The decision turned to some extent on the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act. That case, however, is helpful to this extent that even under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act there is no express prohibition against attachment and all that Section 20 says is that the tenancy is not transferable in execution of a decree of the Civil or Revenue Court. In the same way the Full Bench case of Kalka Das Vs. Gajju Singh and Another, AIR 1921 All 13 may be helpful.

3. The case of Sardarni Datar Kuar v. Ram Rattan (1920) 1 Lah. 192 is also distinguishable because there the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court came to the conolusion that u/s 72, Civil Procedure Code, a Civil Court has power to make a temporary alienation of the property.

4. It is unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether a Civil Court can order the Collector to take steps as provided in the section or whether it can only authorise him if he himself represents to the Court. It is quite sufficient to say that in these Provinces a notification u/s 68, CPC has actually been issued, which apparently is not the case in the Pu