The right of an occupancy tenant cannot be attached or sold in execution of any decree or order, as per the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1920.

Wadegaonkar, A J C—Ratansing, grandfather of the non-applicant, had executed a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 on 8-4-1896 in favour of Fulcbandsa Amolakchandsa, mortgaging certain occupancy fields in Sulgaon and Songir, tahsil Khandwa. The mortgagees, after the death of Ratansing, sued his sons Bhika (father of the non-applicant) and Nathoo on the mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 28-2-1911. This decree was made final on 23-8-1912. Bhika died some time between 1921 and 1922 and Nathoo also died about the same time, and in their place, non-applicant Misriya, son of Bhika, was brought on the record as the legal representative of the judgment-debtors, and in execution of the mortgage decree dated 23-8-1912, the occupancy fields comprised in the mortgage decree were sold for Rs. 1,730 on 12-12-1923. The sale was confirmed on 28-1-1924, and out of the sale proceeds of the occupancy fields the amount due to the decree-holders under their mortgage decree was ordered to be paid to them and the balance of Rs. 341-12-0 to the non-applicant.

2. It appears that non-applicant's father Bhika had executed a simple money bond for Rs. 300 in favour of applicant Bondru and his brother Chunnilal on 16-12-1920. After Bhika's death, Bondru and Chunnilal brought a suit for Rs. 400 on the strength of the above bond against the non-applicant in the Court of Small Causes, Khandwa, and obtained a decree on 1-7-1924. In execution of this decree, the amount of Rs. 341-12-0, which was the balance of the sale proceeds of the occupancy fields and which was lying in the hands of the civil Court, was attached. Non-applicant objected to the attachment on the ground that the money attached was not the property of Bhika in his (non-applicant's) hands. The Small Cause Court allowed his objection and removed the attachment. Against this order, decree-holder Bondru has filed this revision petition.

3. Under the decree dated 1-7-1924, non-applicant was made liable for the decretal amount to the extent of the assets, if any, of Bhika in his hands and the question for consideration is whether the balance of the sale proceeds of occupancy fields, which were sold long after Bhika's death in execution of the mortgage decree against him, represents Bhika's assets in the hands of the non-applicant. My answer to this question is in the negative. As pointed out in Nathoo v. Mt. Mattoo,1913 19 NLR 137 to fasten liability on the heir-at-law or legal representative, the right which has devolved must be property which can be disposed of for the purpose of satisfying the debt due by the deceased. Under S. 11 (2) of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1920, no decree or order can be passed for the sale or foreclosure of any right of an occupancy tenant in his holding except in pursuance of a document registered before the 21st day of October 1898, nor can such right be attached or sold in execution of any decree or order, nor can a Receiver be appointed to manage such holding under S.51 of the Civil Procedure Code, nor can such right vest in the Court or in a. Receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is true that under S. 12 (1) of that Act, an occupancy tenant can sublet his holding for a year and can transfer it otherwise than by a simple mortgage to any co-tenant or person who, if he survived him without nearer heirs, would inherit his right. But it is an extremely limited right and is in some respects more restricted in its nature than even the right of a life-tenant and is in no case available even during the lifetime of the tenant for attachment and sale in satisfaction of his debts. As observed by Mitra, A.J.C., in the case referred above, to hold that succession to such an untransferable right of occupancy created a personal liability to pay the debts of a deceased judgment-debtor, would be opposed to principle and could scarcely have been intended by the legislature: cf. Kidarnath v. Ganeshmal,1916 81 PWR 1916.

4. It is no doubt true that what w