JUDGMENT

1. These three appeals are connected and we propose to decide them by one judgment. Mt. Putta Devi is the respondent in all the three appeals. The appellant in Appeal No. 17 is Chandra Bhushan, the appellant in Appeal No. 18 is Sat Narain and the appellant in Appeal No 19 is Ram Shankar. These three appellants are the step-sons of Mt. Putta Devi. She brought a Suit No. 38 of 1933 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Unao, against these three appellants and one Rameshwar Prasad claiming a one-fifth share in certain property on the allegation that her sons had partitioned it among themselves without giving her her share. In the d alternative she claimed Rs. 600 arrears of maintenance for one year and a decree for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600 a year. She was unable to pay the court-fees for the partition of her share but was given a decree for past and future maintenance and a charge of that maintenance was declared on the property in suit. The three defendants appealed to the Chief Court which by its order dated 5th May 1936, maintained the judgment of the first Court with this variation only that each son was made liable to pay future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12-8-0 per month. Sat Narain applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, in Unao on 28th October 1936, and Chandra Bhushan and Ram Shanker applied on 24th October 1936, in Cawnpur. Mt. Putta Devi put in three applications for execution against each of the appellants on 4th January 1939, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Unao, claiming a certain amount against each of the appellants on account of the maintenance decree and future maintenance which had accrued under the decree upto 1st December 1938. The prayer of the decree-holder was that the amount due to her be realized by a Receiver being appointed in respect of the property. The three appellants objected on the ground that they had applied under the Encumbered Estates Act and so the decrees could not be executed under Section 7. Rama Shanker and Chandra Bhushan further objected that the decree-holder had put in a claim before the Special Judge claiming the amount due to her and therefore she could not apply for execution.

2. It was contended on behalf of the decree-holder, Mst. Putta Devi, that Section 7 did not apply because the money due to her was not a debt as defined in the Encumbered Estates Act. The learned Civil Judge held that the money due to Mt. Putta Devi was not a debt and so the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act were no bar to the application for execution. He ordered a receiver to be appointed in respect of certain property for the realization of the decree-holder's money. It is contended in all the three appeals that the view of law taken by the learned Civil Judge that the money due on account of maintenance was not a debt is erroneous. We have therefore to determine whether a decree for past and future maintenance, is a debt within the meaning of the Encumbered Estates Act. Section 7 of the Act provides:

When the Collector has passed an order under Section 6, the following consequences shall ensue (a) all proceedings pending at the date of the said order in any civil or revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any public or private debt to which the landlord is subject shall be stayed...and no fresh process in execution shall, except as hereinafter be provided, be issued.

3. Sub-section (3) of the section further provides:

After the passing of the order under Section 6 no decree obtained on the basis of any private debt incurred after the passing of the order under Section 6 shall be executed against any of the landlord's proprietary rights in land.

The word 'debt' is defined in Section 2, Clause (a)4. It runs as follows:

In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, debt includes any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages.

5. The decree for past maintenance as well as for future is for a certain amount a