JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is decree-holder's Miscellaneous Second Appeal arising out of an order u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One Surendranarayan Dutta the deceased father of the present judgment-debtors, had borrowed in two instalments Rs. 1,100/- from the present decree-holder (1) on the basis of a hand-note dated 26-4-1944, a sum of Rs. 500/- and (2) on the basis of another hand-note dated 11-1-1947, a sum of Rs. 600/-., Eventually, the decree-holder obtained an exparte decree on 29-10-1954 in execution of which he prayed for attachment of the salary of judgment-debtor No. 1 who is the Principal of Bolangir College. He put in a petition u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. objecting to the decree-holder proceeding against his salary on the ground that he is not personally liable to play off the decretal amount and that he is liable only to the extent of the assets that he has inherited from his father. 2. The decree, as it stands, does not make any mention whether the judgment-debtors, the sons of the deceased debtor who was governed by the Dayabhag School of Hindu Law, are liable personally or only to the extent of the assets inherited by them from their father. There is no dispute over the proposition that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The position is absolutely settled but nevertheless it is equally settled that the executing Court has always the competency to construe a decree which he has to execute. Even in construing the decree he has absolute jurisdiction to refer to the judgment which is the main data for clarifying the construction of the decree. The lower appellate Court, therefore, acted within his competency and is perfectly justified in my opinion to refer to the judgment in the case dated 29-10-1954 to come to the conclusion whether the judgment-debtors are liable personally or not. Several other points arose for determination of the Court. They were regarding the genuineness of the valid-notes, the missing of considerations and also the alleged payments which would save limitation. The last point for determination was "whether the Defendant as sons of Surendrannarayan are liable for the suit loans". After coming to the findings in respect of the debts the learned Munsif observed. "The loans were incurred not for immoral purpose. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of Surendranarayan Dutta. The last point for determination was "whether the Defendant as sons of Surendrannarayan are liable for the suit loans". After coming to the findings in respect of the debts the learned Munsif observed. "The loans were incurred not for immoral purpose. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of Surendranarayan Dutta. In consideration of all these proved facts and circumstances I find all the points in favour of the Plaintiff". The decree was, therefore, undoubtedly passed on the basis that the Defendants were under a pious obligation to payoff the debt of their father which was incurred not for illegal or immoral purposes. Manifestly, therefore, the decree was passed against the Defendants, the sons of the deceased debtor, money to the extent of the assets that they had inherited from their father. The decree-holder has absolutely no power to pursue the judgment-debtors personally and is not competent to attach the salary of judgment-debtor No. 1. The objection petition of the judgment-debtor, therefore, has been rightly allowed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 50/-. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed