JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— This is a second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. One Najm-ud-din got a simple money decree against Zamin Ali, now deceased, husband of the appellant, Musammat Abadi Begam. The date of the decree was 9th June, 1899. The judgment-debtor, Zamin Ali, died some time in 1900. Execution has been applied for against the property of Zamin Ali, now in the possession of Musammat Abadi Begam. She objected that by consent of heirs she was in possession of the property in lieu of dower due to her by her husband. The Court of first instance allowed the objection. On appeal by the decree-holder the District Judge overruled the objection and Musammat Abadi Begam comes here in second appeal. There were two points urged before the lower appellate Court. The first was, that by reason of the dismissal of Abadi Begam's objection on 15th March, 1904, “the objection that she holds mauza Bhaundi in lieu of her dower is res judicata.” The learned Judge decided this plea in favour of Musammat Abadi Begam. He held that the matter was not decided in a suit, and even if it were really decided at all, section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply. The second plea was, that the property in dispute had been attached before judgment and had been all along under attachment and was consequently under attachment when Musam-mat Abadi Begam took possession. This plea, too, the learned judge decided in favour of Musammat Abadi Begam. But he goes on to say, “whether the attachment of 29th April, 1899, is still existing or not, it is clear that the execution of the decree of 10th May, 1899, has been going on all along. Abadi Begam, a well-known litigant, surely knew of the decree against her husband, and when, on his death, she got possession of Bhaundi with the assent of the other heirs, I cannot free her from collusion with them and acting in order to save the property from the decree-holder. In this I think the case differs from the case of Khodija Bibi v. Shah Mohammad Zahir Alam, [1904] 24 A.W.N., 64.. In this I think the case differs from the case of Khodija Bibi v. Shah Mohammad Zahir Alam, [1904] 24 A.W.N., 64.. In that case it was held, “there is nothing whatever to show there was any collusion on the wife's part.” I think the transfer to Abadi Begam by the other heirs of Bhaundi in lieu of her dower is voidable under section 53, Transfer of Property Act.” Although the learned Judge's judgment is not very clear on the point, yet he seems to hold that there was a dower debt clue to Musammat Abadi Begam and that she got possession of the property in lieu thereof, from other heirs after her husband's death. The finding of the learned Judge that section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to the special circumstances of this case is impugned before us by the appellant. If it were necessary to decide this point, we should have considerable difficulty in upholding the view taken by the learned Judge. But the learned Vakil for the respondent supports the decree of the Court below on the ground decided against him, namely, the present objection is barred by the rule of res judicata. He points out that the very objection which was put forward before the Munsif on the 19th April, 1904, was raised by the present appellant in her application of the 21st of January, 1904. The 13th of February, 1904, was fixed for the disposal of this objection. The decree-holder then showed cause. Musammat Abadi Begam's Vakil said that the witnesses he had expected had not come, and on his application the case was adjourned to the 5th March, 1904. The case came on again; on that date the present appellant's Vakil stated that the appellant was not present and that he had received no instructions. Thereupon the objection was dismissed for want of prosecution and on the ground of absence of the objector. This was followed by an order on the 10th March, 1904, and execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector. From this order of dismissal, Musammat Abadi Begam preferred no appeal, and it was not until the 19th April, 1904, that she came into Court, renewed the objection and prayed that the property under attachment might he released. This was followed by an order on the 10th March, 1904, and execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector. From this order of dismissal, Musammat Abadi Begam preferred no appeal, and it was not until the 19th April, 1904, that she came into Court, renewed the objection and prayed that the property under attachment might he released. In this petition she gives no explanation why she had not prosecuted her objections on the date fixed, viz., 5th March, 1904. The learned Vakil relies on the decision, Sheo Raj Singh v. Kameshwar Nath, [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., p. 282.. This case appears to us to be in point and in favour of the respondent. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies on the decision of Yakub Ali v. Dhanpa, [1892] 12 A.W.N., 238.. That case in our opinion can clearly be distinguished from the present. Following the case relied on on behalf of the respondent we hold that the objection put in by the appellant in her application of the 19th April, 1904, was res judi cata, and we dismiss this appeal with costs, which will in this Court include fees on the higher scale.