T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a money decree was passed in favour of one Pooran Chand. He has since died. Execution is now sought by his legal heirs.

2. The argument raised is that the money decree would also fall within the definition of 'debt' and accordingly Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925 would be attracted. Reliance is being placed on 1981(2) MPWN 57, Kewalram v. Surjeet Singh. This Court preferred to follow the view expressed by Nagpur High Court in Tejraj Rajmal v. Rampyari, 1938 NLJ 99 = AIR 1938 Nag. 528. This Court observed as under :

"The view, therefore is that the continuance of an execution application filed by the decree-holder himself, by his legal representatives after the death of the decree-holder is Hot hit by Section 214(1)(b). The other view, which is contrary to the view expressed in Mohammed Yusuf's case (supra) and shared by the Patna, Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts, as stated above, is that the bar created by Section 214(1)(b) is equally applicable to the execution application instituted by the decree-holder himself and sought to be prosecuted further upon his death by his legal representative