JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - On the 18th April, 1939, a decree for profits in favour of Raj Narain amounting to Rs. 174-0-6 was passed against Ganeshi Lal and Mohamdi Begam and two others and on the 27th July, 1940, another decree for profits amounting to Rs. 146-15 was passed in favour of Raj Narain against the same judgment-debtors. On the 21st February, 1941, an application was made for execution of the decree for Rs. 146-15 against Ganeshi Lal and Mohamdi Begam by appointment of a Receiver. On the. 26th March, 1941, another application for execution was made in respect of the other decree. On the 20th June, 1941, Mohamdi Begam objected that she had applied under the Encumbered Estates Act and that therefore execution could not be taken out against her in accordance with Section 7 (3; of the Act The Assistant Collector dismissed the objection, and on the 1st July, 1941, he appointed a Receiver under Order 40 rule 1 He held that the decree could not be the basis' of a claim u/s 41 of the Encumbered Estates Act, and therefore the decree-holder was entitled to execute his decree. As the proprietary rights could not be sold, he appointed a Receiver. In appeal by Mohamdi Begam the decision of the Assistant Collector was reversed by the Additional Civil Judge who held that arrears of profits are not damages and cannot therefore be unliquidated damages. They come within the definition of 'debt' in the Encumbered- Estates Act. 2. These two appeals have been preferred by the decree-holder against the decision of the learned Additional Civil Judge. 3. The cases coming before one of the members of this Bench, were referred to a Bench as the learned Assistant Collector, who passed the order, was supported by certain decisions of the Board of Revenue which seemed of doubtful validity. 4. These decisions are Makhan Singh v. Kishan Lal 1941 O A (Sup) 121 : AWR (Rev) 177 (1941 O. A (2) 121), Navin Chandra v. Radhey Shyam 1941 OA (Sup) 336 : AWR (Rev) 376 (1941 O. A. (2) 336) and Sri Thakur Rasik Behari Lal Ji v. Jwala Prasad 1941 OA (Sup) 361 : AWR (Rev) 424 (1941 O. A. (2) 361). In these decisions it was held that a decree for pro- fits is not a decree in respect of a debt. In these decisions it was held that a decree for pro- fits is not a decree in respect of a debt. Section 2 (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act provides that in the Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or con- text "debt" includes any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages. The Judge who made the reference re- marked, I cannot hold, as one member of the Board of Revenue has, that profits of an undivided share in a mahal are unliquidated damages, I do not think that they are damages at all. 5. The question is whether there is any- thing repugnant in the subject or context which removes profits from the category of debt. 6. Since this reference was made the - matter has been dealt with by a learned Judge of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Shri Krishna alias Lal Singh v. Brahma Sarup 1945 AWR H C 4 : O A (H C) 4 : ALJ 4, The liability of a lambardar to pay their share of the profits to other co-sharers is a pecuniary liability which falls within the definition of 'debt' in Section 2 (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act. A decree for arrears of profits cannot be said to be based upon any liability for unliquidated damages and proceedings in execution of such a decree word attract the provisions of Section 7 of the Encumbered Estates Act. 7. In the body of the judgment the Hon'ble Judge remarks, With great respect to the learned members of the Board of Revenue I am unable to agree with . the view taken by them. In my judgment the liability of a lambardar who collects the income to pay the other co-sharers their shire of that income is undoubtedly a pecuniary liability and no question of damages arises at all in connection with that liability. 8. We are in entire agreement with this view. It has not been argued before us that if these decrees for profits are not decrees for damages, there is any other reason for holding that they do not come within the definition of "debt" in the Encumbered Estates Act nor can we think of any reason. As we feel quite certain that arrears of profits are not damages, and therefore cannot be unliquidated damages, we dismiss both these appeal with costs.