JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act, against an order passed by our learned brother, Ziaul Hasan J. in an execution of decree appeal. The decree-holder held a decree for money against the judgment-debtor and in execution of that decree applied for attachment of certain sum of money which was in the custody of the Court of Wards, Gonda, to the credit of the judgment-debtor. The order of attachment was passed by the execution Court on 1st July 1936. The Special Manager of the Court of Wards, Gonda, raised certain objections to the attachment but after some correspondence the money was sent to the executing Court on 16th September 1936 under protest. The judgment-debtor made an application under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, on 17th September 1936, and put in an application in the execution Court praying that that Court should not pay the money received from the Court of Wards to the decree-holder but should hold it till it is required by the Collector. This application was presumably made under the provisions of Section 7, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The first Court being of opinion that that Section did not apply rejected the judgment-debtor's prayer, and the first Appellate Court dismissed the judgment-debtor's appeal and maintained the order of the first Court. A second appeal was filed by the judgment-debtor, which was allowed by our learned brother on 5th April 1937. The decree-holder has obtained leave to appeal to a Bench of two Judges of this Court under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act.

2. The only question argued before us is that Section 7, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, did not apply because there was no attachment or other execution process in force at the date of the order under Section 6. These words occur in Clause (a) of Section 7(1), U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The argument is that the attachment ceased to exist the moment the money was received from the Court of Wards by the execution Court on 16th September 1936, and the attachment was no longer in force. The learned Judge of this Court held that this view was incorrect and the attachment was in force till the money was disposed of by the Court by paying it to the decree-holder or otherwise. The object of the Encumbered Estates Act is to give relief to indebted landlords, and Section 4 of the Act provides for an application by a landlord to obtain the benefit of the Act. Section 6 provides for acceptance of the application by the Collector and transmission of it to the Special Judge, and Section 7 lays down the consequences of the acceptance of that application by the Collector. The principle of Section 7 is to put a stop to proceedings of all kinds in respect of public or private debts of the landlord pending at the date in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces and reserve all questions in respect of those debts to be decided by the Special Judge, and further to provide against any fresh proceeding or suit, etc., against the landlord till the matter has been disposed of finally by the Collector. By this Act the Legislature vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Judge to determine all matters relating to the debts of the landlord and the properties owned by him and in the Collector the liquidation of debts and administration of the landlord's property, and this exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Judge and the Collector arises on an order under Section 6 being passed by the Collector. It is therefore clear that the money which was in the hands of the Court of Wards of Gonda and belonged to the judgment-debtor, after the order of the Collector under Section 6, could not but be administered by the Collector. To hold that the provisions of Section 7(1) did not apply to the proceedings pending in the execution Court in respect of that money would be to defeat the spirit and the provisions of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act.

3. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has referred to the provisions