H. S. CHATURVEDI, J.:- This appeal by the decree-holder arises out of proceedings under S.47, Civil P.C. In order to appreciate the point in controversy in the appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts which are not disputed.

2. On the basis of a registered mortgage deed dated 2-2-1931, executed by Lala Batey Krishna respondent, a suit was brought by the appellant. Both the mortgagor and the mortgagee referred the matter to Lala Lakshman Das for arbitration. After the receipt of the award a decree was passed on its basis on 22-1-1943. Under this decree which was founded upon the award the judgment-debtor mortgagor was to pay the decretal amount in certain instalments. It was also provided that in case the judgment-debtor failed to pay three consecutive instalments, the decree-holder would be entitled to realise the entire decretal amount by sale of the zamindari property mortgaged under the deed. The last provision was that in case the sale of the zamindari property was not found sufficient to pay off the decretal amount, the decree-holder shall be entitled to execute his decree against the person and other property of the judgment-debtor. It is not disputed that there was default in the payment of instalments which entitled the decree-holder to execute his decree in its entirety.

3. The decree-holder applied for execution on 25-7-1952 and the amount for which the execution was sought was mentioned in the application as Rs.48,965/7/-. By this application the decree holder prayed attachment of certain houses and other properties of the judgment-debtor, i.e., other than the mortgaged property mentioned in the decree. It was pointed out in the application that the decree-holder was not able to proceed as against the zamindari property because that property had vested in the Government and was no longer in the ownership of the judgment-debtor.

The prayer of the decree-holder was allowed and the properties were attached. Thereupon the judgment-debtor filed an objection under S.47, C.P.C., questioning the attachment on two main grounds:

1. That the decree-holder could not be allowed to execute his decree against property which was not mortgaged unless he first applied for a personal decree against the judgment-debtor.

2. That the decree-holder has no right to proceed against other property of the mortgagor, until and unless he has exhausted his remedy against the zamindari property mortgaged which is now substituted by the compensation money to be given by the State.

4. The learned Civil Judge allowed the objections on the ground that the decree-holder must first proceed against the compensation which the State would pay for the mortgaged property and till then he has no right to proceed against the other property of the judgment-debtor. Dissatisfied with this finding, the decree-holder has come up in appeal.

5. The first objection that the decree-holder should have applied for a personal decree is wholly untenable. It is manifest from the decree itself that it was a composite decree in which the decree-holder was first asked to proceed to realise his money by sale of the zamindari property and if such a sale did not provide sufficient funds to discharge the decretal amount, then the decree-holder was given a further right to execute that very decree as against the person and other property of the judgment-debtor. In view of the decree, it was not necessay for the decree-holder to apply for a personal decree before proceeding to attach the other properties belonging to the judgment-debtor.

6. The main question that has been argued before us is whether the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the other property of the judgment-debtor without first exhausting his remedy as against the compensation money which may be fixed by the State for the mortgaged zamindari property. It is no longer disputed that the mortgaged zamindari property, which could be sold under the decree, no longer exists for the simple reason that