Judgment Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor objector as against an order dismissing his objection to the execution of the decree under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree for maintenance as per petition of compromise which was embodied in the decree; and, as there was no payment according to the decree, the respondent sought to execute the said decree and to recover the arrears of maintenance by selling certain properties of the judgment-debtor. 3. The appellant objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that, as the decree created a charge only on one-third share in the properties mentioned in the petition of compromise, which was embodied in the decree, the execution should have been levied only against the one-third share of the appellant in the properties, and the prayer of the decree-holder for sale of the entire properties was not maintainable without first exhausting this share in the properties charged. 4. The Court below has overruled the contention, and allowed the decree to be executed in the manner asked for by the respondent. The properties have been sold, and the money has been realised during the pendency of this appeal, as this Court did not think it proper to stay the sale or the confirmation of it. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that, as per terms of the compromise petition, only one-third share of the appellant was made subject of charge for recovery of the decree. The compromise petition has been placed before this Court. Although this petition of compromise mentions firstly that only one-third share of the appellant was subjected to a charge, the latter portion of the same paragraph of the compromise petition makes it abundantly clear that, in case the maintenance fell in arrears, the decree-holder was entitled to realise and recover the maintenance by sale of all the properties of the appellant. Reading, therefore, the compromise petition as a whole, in my opinion, there is no room for argument that the decree-holder respondent was not entitled to recover the maintenance by sale of any of the properties of the judgment-debtor. The decree for maintenance is a decree for money, and, like a money decree, it could be executed by sale of the interest of the judgment-debtor in any property belonging to him. The decree for maintenance is a decree for money, and, like a money decree, it could be executed by sale of the interest of the judgment-debtor in any property belonging to him. The creation of the charge only on one-third share of the judgment-debtor in the properties was not for the purpose of limiting the rights of the decree-holder to recover the maintenance from any of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtor, but it was for benefit of the judgment-debtor himself to the extent that only one-third share of the properties was to be subjected to charge; in other words; the judgment-debtor was entitled to deal with the properties in any manner he liked except to the extent of one-third share in them. So far as the decree-holder was concerned, as I have already said, she was entitled to pursue any of the properties of the judgment-debtor. 6. Our attention was drawn to the case of Ramabai Balkrishna V/s. Janardan Eknath, AIR 1943 Bom 158 (A), in which reference was made to a Full Bench decision of that Court reported as Gurappa Gurushiddappa V/s. Amarangji Vanichand, 43 Bom LR 26; (AIR 1941 Bom 90) (B). In my judgment, however, the decision to which I have come upon the text of the decree in the present case cannot be said to be against the view taken either in AIR 1943 Bom 158 (A) or 43 Bom LR 26: (AIR 1941 Bom 90) (FB) (B). In the first case, it was held that where a decree for maintenance fixed annual payments and created a charge on certain property, the decree" holder had first to proceed against the property charged, and if the decree could not be satisfied out of the charged property, the decree-holder had the right to proceed personally against the judgment-debtor. In the Full Bench case, the consent decree provided that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff a certain amount by yearly instalments, and it further gave a charge in favour of the plaintiff for the decretal amount on certain shares belonging to the defendant, and it then provided that, if the defendant failed to pay the money in time, the same could be recovered by sale of the said shares. The defendant failed to pay the instalments in time, and the charged shares were sold, but the price fetched did not completely satisfy the decree. The defendant failed to pay the instalments in time, and the charged shares were sold, but the price fetched did not completely satisfy the decree. The plaintiff then applied to execute the decree for the balance by attachment and sale of a house belonging to the defendant. It was contended in that case that the plaintiff, by taking a charge on specific shares, had abandoned his right to recover the money by any other means. It was held, overruling the contention, that the plaintiff, having failed to realise the whole amount of the decree by sale of the charged shares, could proceed under the decree to attach any property of the judgment-debtor which might be available. It will thus be seen that the decree in that case was different from the decree in the present case. In the case in hand, though certain shares of the appellant was charged with the burden of payment of the maintenance, it was clearly recited in the compromise petition that the respondent would be entitled to realise the arrears of maintenance by sale of any of the properties belonging to the appellant. Reference was also made to the case of Fatehchand Mangilal Marwadi V/s. Indian Cotton Co. Ltd., Bombay, AIR 1935 Nag 129 (C). There also, the charge was on certain specified property, but there was no mention in the decree that the person in whose favour the charge was created was entitled to recover his money from the charged as well as non-charged properties. In that case, it was held that where a charge was created in the decree over certain specified properties for the payment of the decretal amount, the decree-holder should first exhaust his remedy against the charged properties before proceeding against the other properties; and further that, in the event of charge proving insufficient, there was nothing to prevent the decree-holder from proceeding against other properties. In my opinion, it must depend upon the terms of the decree as to whether the decree-holder should exhaust his remedy first by proceeding against the charged properties and then, in the event of the decree being not satisfied by the sale of the charged properties, to pursue; the other properties. In our case, as I have already indicated, the decree in specific terms runs as follows: "In case of default of any instalment, Mostt. Shyampati Kuer and Most. In our case, as I have already indicated, the decree in specific terms runs as follows: "In case of default of any instalment, Mostt. Shyampati Kuer and Most. Bindo Kuer shall be (jointly) and severally competent to realise the dues by putting to auction sale the property detailed below on which the charge has been created, as well as other properties belonging to defendants Nos. 1 and 2." 7. According to the judgment under appeal, in two other cases, namely, Misc. Case No. 31 of 1949 (D) and Misc. Case No. 28 of 1953 (E), it was held that the charge was created in respect of the entire properties and not in respect of one-third share only. The paper book does not contain those orders in the two miscellaneous cases, and I am not in a position to hold that the decision of the Court below in regard to those orders in the miscellaneous cases is wrong. It was for the appellant to have included in the paper book these two orders in the aforesaid miscellaneous cases. It is said that those miscellaneous cases were not between the parties, and, therefore, the Court below was wrong in referring to those orders in the miscellaneous cases. I searched in vain for these orders on the record of this appeal, but they were not sent by the Court below. As, however, I am not basing my decision on the orders passed in those two miscellaneous cases, it was not thought necessary to send for those orders in the miscellaneous cases from the Court below. In my opinion, therefore, the Court below was right in holding that the execution case should proceed in the manner asked for by the respondent. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails, and it is dismissed, but there will be no order for costs as there is no opposition to this appeal, Dayal, J. 9 I agree.