JUDGMENT

Bhargava, J. - The firm Narain Das Ganga Saran of Hathras held a decree against the firm Hari Shankar Moti Ram of Aligarh. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Koil, Aligarh, for execution. The Court executing the decree made an order for attachment of the moveable property of the judgment-debtor. The amin attached the property and entrusted the same to Mathura Das, who was appointed a supurdar and executed a tupurdnama on the 30th July 1936. Under the supurdnama he under took to deliver the property whenever and wherever he was called upon by the Court to do so and in the event of his failure to deliver the property to pay its value and the Court could recover the same from his person and property.

2. The firm Mithan Lal Mangal Sen of Delhi also held a decree against the firm Hari Shankar Moti Ram of Aligarh. That decree was also transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Koil, Aligarh, for execution. In execution of that decree also certain moveable property of the judgment-debtor was attached and it was entrusted to Lakshmi Kant, who was also appointed a supurdar, presumably on the same terms.

3. Both the supurdars failed to deliver the property entrusted to them at the time of sale. The decree-holder in each case released the moveable property and proceeded against other property of the judgment-debtor and eventually part satisfaction of the decree was recorded. When the judgment-debtor could not get back his property, which had been released from attachment, he filed, in each case, an application under Sections 145 and 151, Civil P.C., alleging that the decree-holder had got property worth Rs. 9000 attached and that the decree-holder and the supurdars had misappropriated the property and were liable to pay the value of the property. Both the decree-holder and the supurdars denied these allegations as well as their liability. The supurdars alleged that the attached property all along remained with the judgment-debtor.

4. The executing Court held that the decree-holders were not liable in any case; that Mathura Das supurdar never got possession of the property hence he was also not liable; and that Lakshmi Kant had got possession of the property and he was liable to pay Rs. 506, the value of the property as given by the amin.

5. Against the order of the executing Court Hari Shankar, the judgment-debtor, filed Appeal No. 119 of 1945, claiming Rs. 9000 from the decree-holder as well as from the supurdar, Lakshmi Kant. The appeal was dismissed and there is no further appeal. Hari Shankar filed another appeal, No. 107 of 1945, by which he challenged the finding of the executing Court that Mathura Das never got the property and he was not liable. In that appeal the lower appellate Court found that the attached property was actually entrusted to Mathura Das and he was liable to pay its value. Accordingly, the order passed by the executing Court was set aside and the case was remanded to that Court for determination of the value of the property entrusted to. Mathura Das. F.A.F.O. No. 106 of 1946 has been filed by Mathura Das against that order.

6. Lakshmi Kant filed Appeal No. 117 of 1945, disputing his liability. The lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the executing Court and dismissed his appeal. Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1946 filed by Lakshmi Kant is directed against that order.

7. It may be noted here that in both the cases, which were started on the applications of the judgment-debtor in the two execution cases, the lower appellate Court seems to have treated the proceedings as suits and directed the judgment-debtor to pay court-fee.

8. In the two appeals the same questions of law arise : (1) whether the judgment-debtor was entitled to make an application u/s 145, Civil P.C.; and (2) whether the judgment-debtor having valued his claim at Rs. 9000 the executing Court had jurisdiction to entertain or try the same.

9. The first question has been argued before us at some length. It has been contend