JUDGMENT G.N. Das, J. - This Rule was obtained by the decree-holders auction-k purchasers in a proceeding u/s 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The facts of the case may be shortly stated as follows: The debtors or their predecessors executed a mortgage-bond in respect, of several items of properties in favour of the decree-holders Petitioners for a sum of Rs. 1,825. On September 5, 1934, a final decree for sale was passed in favour of the decree-holders for a sum of Rs. 5,738-15-3. The decree-holders put the decree into execution. It appears that, at that stage, the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors came to an arrangement, whereby the decree-holders agreed to proceed in the first instance against three items of the mortgaged properties. The execution, therefore, proceeded, so far as these three items of properties are concerned. On July 15, 1935, these items of mortgaged properties were sold and purchased by the decree-holders. A portion of the decretal dues was left unsatisfied. The judgment-debtors did not pay the-unsatisfied portion of the decree. The decree-holders thereupon started another execution for realisation of the balance of their dues. In this execution-case the remaining fifteen items of the mortgaged properties in the judgment-debtors' undivided eight annas share was brought to sale on August 16, 1937 and purchased by the decree-holders. The decree-holders auction-purchasers then went into possession. On April 18, 1938, the decree-holders auction-purchasers had the undivided shares in these fifteen items of properties partitioned with the other co-sharers. The partition was effected by a registered deed. After Section 37A had been added by Bengal Act II of 1942, the judgment-debtors started proceedings u/s 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, claiming restoration of possession in respect of the properties which were sold on July 15, 1935, and on August 16, 1937. This application was dismissed by the Special Officer, Debt Settlement Board. An appeal being taken by the debtors, the appellate officer took the view that partition was not a transfer for consideration and as such, the exception provided for in Section 37A(7)(c) was not attracted. In the result, an order was made in favour of the debtors. This application was dismissed by the Special Officer, Debt Settlement Board. An appeal being taken by the debtors, the appellate officer took the view that partition was not a transfer for consideration and as such, the exception provided for in Section 37A(7)(c) was not attracted. In the result, an order was made in favour of the debtors. On a petition u/s 40A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act being presented by the decree-holders auction-purchasers, the learned District Judge took the view that, in so far as the properties, which were sold on July 15, 1935, were concerned, the debtors would not be entitled to restoration of possession, but as regards the properties which were sold on August 16, 1937, the debtors would be entitled to relief on the ground that the partition, which was effected on April 18, 1938, though an alienation, was not a transfer within the meaning of Section 37A(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The learned District Judge directed the matter to be remitted to the Board for passing further orders in the light of the decision reported in the case of Madaripur Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Lal Mohan Shaha ILR (1946) Cal. 191. It 5 is this order of the District Judge which is challenged in this Revision Case. 2. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the decree-holders auction-purchasers, has contested the view taken by the learned District Judge that partition was not a transfer. He has referred us to the case of Satya Kumar Banerjee v. Satya Kripal Banerjee (1909) 10 C.L.J. 503; Atrabannessa Bibi v. Sapatullah Mia ILR (1915) Cal. 504, 509 and Rasa Goundan v. Arunachela Goundan AIR (1923) (Mad.) 577. He has also submitted that the basic conception of a partition is to be found in Mitdkshard, Chap. I, Section 4 and Ddyabhaga, Chap. I, Section 8. His contention is that partition involves a loss of right in some properties and the acquisition of right in others and it is a transfer within the meaning of Section 37A(1)(c)(iv). 3. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to consider the meaning of the word "transfer" occurring in Clause (c)(iv) of Section 37A(i) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. 4. 3. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to consider the meaning of the word "transfer" occurring in Clause (c)(iv) of Section 37A(i) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. 4. The material portion of Section 37A provides that, when any immovable property of any person has been sold after August 12, 1935, in execution of a decree of a civil court relating to a debt, such person or his heir, executor or administrator may apply for relief under the section, if the conditions referred to in Clauses (a) to (c) are fulfilled. In this case we are concerned only with Clause (c) which reads as follows: If the property sold was in the possession of the decree-holder on or after December 20, 1939, or was alienated by the decree-holder before that date in any manner otherwise than by-- (i) a bona fide gift by a hebd, whether by registered instrument or not, or (ii) any other bona fide gift by registered instrument, or (iii) a bona fide lease for valuable consideration whether by registered instrument or not, or (iv) any other bona fide transfer for valuable consideration (excepting a mortgage) by registered instrument,-- 5. The question, therefore, is that, before the debtor can get relief, the debtor must show that the property so sold was in the possession of the decree-holder on or after the December 20, 1939, or that the decree-holder had alienated the property sold in any manner other than those described in Clauses (i) to (iv). A case of a registered mortgage was expressly excluded from the purview of the exceptions, for the simple reason that such a mortgage is dealt with under Clause (4) of the section and provision is made for satisfaction of the same in the manner provided therein. We may also refer at this stage to Clauses (5), (7) and (8) of the Act, Clauses (5) and (7) speak of the amounts which would be dealt with, by the award. Clause (8) provides that, after the award has been made, the debtor may have the sale set aside by the appropriate court on presenting the award in that court. Clause (8) further provides for restoration of possession and the dispossession of various persons mentioned in that clause. 6. Clause (8) provides that, after the award has been made, the debtor may have the sale set aside by the appropriate court on presenting the award in that court. Clause (8) further provides for restoration of possession and the dispossession of various persons mentioned in that clause. 6. A perusal of the different provisions of Section 37A makes it clear that the Act makes a provision retrospectively to enable debtors to get rid of a sale which took place as far back as August 12, 1935 on payment to the decree-holder of the sums as mentioned in the section. In order that the debtor may make such payments, provision is made for restoration of possession of the properties sold to the debtors subject to Section 37A(1)(c). Mr. Gupta contends that Section 37A(1)(c) should be strictly-construed and the debtor can only have restoration of possession of the identical properties which were brought under hammer at the sale which is sought to be set aside under the section. 7. Dr. Sen Gupta, appearing on behalf of the debtors opposite parties, contends that the property sold should not, be taken to be the identical items of properties which were put to sale, but must also mean the new form which the properties may have acquired as a result of the partition. He, therefore, contends that restoration of possession should be made in respect of the allotments which have been received by the decree-holders auction-purchasers as a result of partition. In order to deal with these contentions, it is necessary to consider the effect of the partition of April 18, 1938. 8. A partition does not create a new title. It merely substitutes the lands allotted in severalty for the undivided shares of the lands, which a co-sharer had in the property. The result of the partition of property, which is the subject of mortgage, is to transform the subject of the pledge into a new form or shape, the security attaching to the lands allotted to the mortgagor on such partition. This view is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of (1874) L.R. 1 I.A. 106 (Privy Council) . This view is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of (1874) L.R. 1 I.A. 106 (Privy Council) . It was pointed out in that case that the effect of a partition by the Collector was that the mortgage security attached to the lands which were allotted by the Collector to the mortgagor as a result of the partition, the mortgagee being held, to be entitled to proceed against the lands so allotted. It was said that this was the only right which the mortgagee had after the partition, there being no privity of contract between the mortgagee and the other co-sharers who got different allotments. The principles so enunciated by the Judicial Committee in cases of partition under the Estates Partition Act has been extended to cases of partition either by a civil court or by a private arrangement or under an award. In a later case, Baijnath Goenka v. Ravaneswar Prasad Singh ILR (1922) Pat. 378 : L.R. 49 IndAp 139, it was held that the effect of partition was to substitute the undivided shares of the co-sharer in certain lands for the lands allotted to such co-sharers in severalty and this right could be enforced even in proceedings in execution of a decree obtained by the co-sharer in respect of his undivided share by allowing him possession of the lands allotted to that co-sharer as a result of partition. The same principle has been applied where a mortgage was executed in respect of an undivided share in one item of property and the result of partition was to allot to the mortgagor an altogether different item of property, the mortgage being held in such circumstances to attach to a property not mortgaged at all but which was allotted by the partition to the co-sharer mortgagor. See the case of Mohammad Afzal Khan v. Abdul Rahman ILR (1932) Lah. 702: L.R. 59 IndAp 405. 9. The true effect of partition was recently considered by this Court in this case of Suhashini Poddar v. Sree Nath Chakrabarti ILR (1945) 2 Cal. 651, 657. Mitter J. observed as follows: Although partition thus resembles an exchange, it is not an exchange. There is No. conveyance but only transformation of the property. The estate in common is transformed, that is, it takes only another form, namely, two of more estates to be possessed and enjoyed in severalty. 651, 657. Mitter J. observed as follows: Although partition thus resembles an exchange, it is not an exchange. There is No. conveyance but only transformation of the property. The estate in common is transformed, that is, it takes only another form, namely, two of more estates to be possessed and enjoyed in severalty. By the partition a co-sharer gets a separate allotment by virtue of his antecedent title as co-sharer. 10. In the case of Ksheeroda Sundari Dasi v. Amrita Lal Chaudhuri ILR (1946) Cal. 137, 143 Sen and Das JJ. found themselves in complete accord with the observations of Mitter J. quoted above. The principles which underlie these cases are based on natural justice and similar principles have been adopted in different countries as governing the rights of mortgagees. See Domat, Civil Law, p. 1668, Note R and Jones on Mortgage, Article 706. The effect of partition, therefore, is that it converts the lien from a charge upon an undivided share of the whole into a charge against the whole of the property which has been allotted in lieu of such share. 11. Mr. Das Gupta for the Petitioner in his reply submitted that these principles would apply till the mortgage sale takes place, because the charge subsists till the sale is confirmed in execution of the mortgage decree. The object of Section 37A is to enable the debtor to pay up his dues in terms of the section. The effect of Clause (8) is to set aside the sale even before the payments are made in terms of the Act, the only safeguard being a restriction on the power of the debtor to alienate till the full payments are made as ii provided for in the Act. Having regard to the scope and the purpose of Section 37A, we do not see why the principles enunciated in the cases cited above should not be made applicable to proceedings u/s 37A of the Act. Having regard to the scope and the purpose of Section 37A, we do not see why the principles enunciated in the cases cited above should not be made applicable to proceedings u/s 37A of the Act. The effect of partition being merely to change the form of the property sold, we think that a reasonable view to take of Section 37(1)(c) is to hold that, in case of a sale of an undivided share in certain properties, where a partition takes place since the sale and the decree-holder auction-purchaser takes certain allotments, the property sold should be regarded as the same thing as the specific allotments which the decree-holder auction-purchaser got as a result of the partition by virtue of his pre-existing title acquired by the sale of the undivided share. 12. This view also receives support from the general principles which govern redemptions in cases of mortgages. To take the stock illustration of a pledge, of a flock of sheep, if some of them die, leaving young ones, the pledge attaches to the new ones also. The principle of substituted security is also embodied in Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly, in the case of Nesbitt v. Berridge (1864) 10 Jur. (N.S.) 53, where there was a pledge of a policy of insurance and after the pledge the old policy was surrendered and a new one taken, the pledge was held to attach to the new insurance policy which was taken. Similarly, by way of analogy, we may refer to the case of Suhashini Poddar v. Sree Nath Chakrabati (supra). In that case, certain undivided shares in a property were sold in execution of a decree for recovery of money due on a bond. A suit for partition was instituted for partitioning the undivided share so purchased by the decree-holder. A preliminary decree was passed. At that stage, the debtor applied for relief u/s 36 of the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The decree was re-opened. A question arose as to the property in respect of which restoration of possession should be directed in terms of Section 36(3) of the Bengal Money-lenders Act. It was contended on behalf of the decree-holder that, as the undivided share of the debtor had since been partitioned and a final decree passed, no restoration of possession could be directed in respect of the allotments which had been obtained by the creditor. It was contended on behalf of the decree-holder that, as the undivided share of the debtor had since been partitioned and a final decree passed, no restoration of possession could be directed in respect of the allotments which had been obtained by the creditor. This contention was repelled by this Court and it was held that the title to the specific allotments obtained by the decree-holder was so obtained by him on the foot of the title acquired by him in execution of the decree which was reopened and relief was given to the debtor by way of restoration of possession in respect of the specific allotments which had been allotted to the decree-holder as a result of the partition. The principles underlying this case, in our opinion, should apply to the facts of the present case. 13. The result of the above discussion leads us to hold that the debtor should have relief u/s 37A in respect of the allotments which the decree-holder auction-purchaser had received so far as the properties covered by the sale of August 16, 1937, are concerned. The sale of the properties held on July 15, 1935, being dated before the relevant date, no restoration of possession can be made in respect of those properties. 14. Objection was taken before the courts below that inasmuch as no restoration of possession could be made in respect of the properties sold on July 15, 1935, the debtor cannot be restored to possession of the other properties which were sold on August 16, 1937, held in execution of the same mortgage decree, as partial setting aside of the sale was not contemplated by Section 37A. This fact cannot, however, present any difficulty, because in the present case, by arrangement between the parties, it was agreed, that the mortgaged properties should be separately sold in two instalments. In the view we have taken, the sale which was held on August 16, 1937, was a distinct sale held in pursuance of the arrangement between the parties and as restoration of possession is being allowed in respect of all the items of properties separately sold on August 16, 1937, no question of partial setting aside of the sale arises in the facts of this case. Madaripur Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Lal Mohan Shaha (supra). 15. Madaripur Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Lal Mohan Shaha (supra). 15. The result, therefore, is that the debtor will have restoration of possession only in respect of the allotments received by the decree-holder auction-purchaser in pursuance of the sale which took place on August 16, 1937. There will be no restoration of possession in respect of the items of properties sold on July 15, 1935. 16. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. 17. The Petitioners will pay to the contesting opposite party the costs of this Rule, the hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. Lahiri J. 18. I agree.