JUDGMENT Mukerji, J. - This appeal is against an order of the Civil Judge of Saharanpur made in respect of certain objections which purported to have been filed u/s 47 CPC in Execution Case No. 41 of 1952. 2. Mukhia Shyam Lal had obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 24,979-120 against the objector Madan Lal from the court of the Civil Judge of Mathura in suit No. 29 of 1950. The decretal amount was to be realised by the sale of mortgaged property which had been specified in the decree. The properties which were the subject of the mortgage decree were partly zamindari properties and partly house properties. The decree was put into execution at Saharanpur after the decree had been transferred for execution from Mathura to Saharanpur. 3. The objector Madan Lal challenged the executability of the decree on two grounds. The first was, that the decree holder could only execute his decree after he had proceeded against the compensation bonds which had been obtained in respect of zamindari property and secondly that the decree was to remain stayed in pursuance of the rules framed by the State Government under the UP ZA and LR Act. The rule on which reliance appears to have been placed was Rule 4(2)(vii) which says this: Rule 4. Stay of certain suits and proceedings (1) ___________ (2) All proceedings (except in so far as they relate to the realisation, otherwise than by ejectment of the judgment debtor, of cost or compensation awarded in any suit or proceedings upon any decree or order, unless it is a decree or order which became final before the date of vesting, but is not a decree which may be executed by ejectment of the judgment debtor passed in any such suit or proceedings previous to the date of vesting shall be stayed. (i) ______________ (ii) ______________ (iii) ______________ (iv)_______________ (v) ______________ (vi) ______________ (vii) all cases of execution of decrees relating to debts which are wholly or partially charged upon or decreed against an estate or any part thereof. 4. The court below repelled the first contention of the objector, namely that the decree could only be proceeded with against compensation bonds for a partial execution. But in regard to the second contention, the court below took the view that execution had to be stayed in view of the provisions of the rule quoted above. 4. The court below repelled the first contention of the objector, namely that the decree could only be proceeded with against compensation bonds for a partial execution. But in regard to the second contention, the court below took the view that execution had to be stayed in view of the provisions of the rule quoted above. The question which we have to determine in this appeal a question which was not clearly put forward in the court below, was whether the stay could continue to block the way of the decree holder in obtaining satisfaction of his decree-such satisfaction as the law permits him-after intervention of the circumstances which we shall presently state. 5. After the decree was passed the State legislature brought on to the statute book an enactment called the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act (Act XV of 1953). Under this Act certain decrees could be amended in so far as the amount payable on certain decrees could be reduced in terms of the reduction prescribed by the Act. 6. An application was made by the judgment-debtor on the 6th of April 1956 for the reduction of the amount of the decree within the scope of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. The relief, apparently, was sought under the provisions of Section 4 of that Act which says this: Section 4(1) Notwithstanding anything in the CPC 1908, or any other law, the Court, which passed a decree to which this Act applies relating to a secured debt shall, on the application either of the decree-holder or judgment debtor, proceed as hereinafter stated. (2) .... (3) Where the mortgaged property charged under the decree consists partly of estate and partly of property other than estate, the court shall- (a) determine the amount due on the 1st day of July 1952, and distribute the same on two properties separately in accordance with the principles contained in Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as if the decree had been a debt and the two properties belonging separately to two persons with separate (sic) distinct rights of ownership; and (b) after the amount due as respects the estate has been so calculated,- (i) .... (ii) .... (ii) .... (iii) after the aforesaid amount has been so apportioned reduce the amount in accordance with the formula a given in Schedule I Acting on this provision the learned Judge did the apportionment and reduced the debt; this the Judge did by an order dated 11-11-1957 (that order is the subject of an other appeal, namely, Execution First Appeal No. 80 of 1958). The question that has to be determined is whether after the coming into force of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, which was for the benefit of the Zamindars, and after action had been taken under that Act in respect of the decree which was reduced any longer remained a decree which remained, stayed or could be stayed under the provisions of Rule 4(2)(vii). 7. Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act says that after the amount due has been reduced under and in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, the decree shall, to the extent of the reduction, so effected be deemed for-all purposes to be duly satisfied. Section 8 of the same Act provides for the realisation of the debt from compensation money and rehabilitation grant. There is however no specific provision in the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act conferring a kind of power or indicating the manner in which the apportioned amount, the amount apportioned on property other than estate, was to be proceeded with. But the scheme of the Act and the object with which the Act was made seems to have been that after there had been reduction in the amount and after there had been an apportionment between the liability falling on "estate" and "non-estate", the decree holder could recover his money in respect of his debt as provided for under the Act in respect of estate and in respect of the other property, namely non-estate, he was left to his ordinary remedy of execution. The effect of any stay which operated by virtue of Rule 4 of the UP ZA and LR Rules and which operated in respect of the unamended decree, would possibly have no application to the changed decree even though this charged and altered decree may not be deemed to be a new decree. The effect of any stay which operated by virtue of Rule 4 of the UP ZA and LR Rules and which operated in respect of the unamended decree, would possibly have no application to the changed decree even though this charged and altered decree may not be deemed to be a new decree. As we pointed out earlier, Sections 7 and 8 both make it clear that the decree which, though it may have been stayed under Rule 4 of the ZA Rules, did not stand in the way of action being taken under the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and there appeared no adequate reason why after there had been reduction and apportionment under that Act, the decree could rot proceed to execution. 8. In me view that we have taken, this appeal has to be allowed and the order of the court below has to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The case will now go back to the Civil Judge of Saharanpur to be dealt with, further, in accordance with law in respect to execution. In the circumstances we think we should direct the parties to bear their, own costs.