JUDGMENT Srivastava, J. - This is a decree-holder's appeal. The decree-holder filed suit No. 58 of 1954 for the recovery of Rs. 14,000 and odd from the assets of Saeedul Zafar in the hands of his heirs. All those heirs were impleaded as defendants. As some of them migrated to Pakistan, the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property in whom their interest in the assets had vested was also impleaded as defendant. The suit was contested by only four of the defendants including the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property and was ultimately decreed against the assets of Saeedul Zafar in the hands of the contesting defendants. The decree-holder put the decree in execution and prayed for the realisation of the amount of the decree by attachment and sale of the assets of the deceased in the hands of the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property, Muzaffarnagar. The Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property filed an objection to the application for execution. He contended that Section 17 of Act No. XXXI of 1950 was a bar to the application for execution. He also contended that the property being a composite property, the executing court could not separate the interests of the evacuees and the non-evacuees. That he contended, could be done only by the Competent Officer under Act No. 64 of 1951. He also suggested that the decree-holder should approach the Custodian for the satisfaction of her claim under R. 22 of the rules framed under Act No. XXXI of 1950. 2. The executing court by the order now under appeal held that Section 17 of the Evacuee Property Act provided an effective bar to the application for execution. It also pointed out that R. 22 referred to by the Custodian in his objection had been repealed. It therefore allowed the objection and dismissed the application for execution. 3. The decree-holder has come up in appeal and contends that the executing court was not justified in rejecting the execution application in toto. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of opinion that the dismissal of the entire application for execution was not justified in the circumstances of the case. 5. 3. The decree-holder has come up in appeal and contends that the executing court was not justified in rejecting the execution application in toto. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of opinion that the dismissal of the entire application for execution was not justified in the circumstances of the case. 5. It is true that Section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. XXXI of 1950) provides an absolute bar to the decree-holder's proceeding in execution against any property which was vested or was deemed to be vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the Act. As the section stands, the fact that the Custodian was himself a party to the decree and the decree had been passed against him also, appears to be immaterial. The section does not make any exception in respect of decrees or orders passed against the Custodian. The section however, is limited to properties vested or deemed to be vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. It is only against that kind of property that execution is barred. Execution is not barred against property which is not vested in the Custodian or is not deemed to be vested in him under the provisions of the Act. Now in the present case, it is the admitted case of the parties that only some of the heirs of Saeedul Zafar had migrated to Pakistan and had become evacuees. Other heirs were in India and had not become evacuees. Each heir had inherited a specified share in the properties of the deceased under Mohammadan Law. Only the shares of the evacuees had got vested in the Custodian. The share of the non-evacuees had not got vested in him. There was, therefore, nothing in Section 17 to prevent the execution proceeding against the shares of the non-evacuee heirs. It barred execution only against the property of the Evacuee defendants which had vested in the Custodian. 6. The property was certainly joint though the various co-owners had defined shares in it. The property was therefore composite property. On this ground it was contended that under the Evacuee Interest Separation Act (Act No. 64 of 1961) the whole of property vested in the Custodian. 6. The property was certainly joint though the various co-owners had defined shares in it. The property was therefore composite property. On this ground it was contended that under the Evacuee Interest Separation Act (Act No. 64 of 1961) the whole of property vested in the Custodian. This contention cannot, however, be accepted as correct in view of the decision of Mel the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hakeem v. Regional Settlement Commissioner-cum-Custodian Evacuee Property Bhopal, 1961 AIR SC 1391. It was, therefore, open to the decree-holder to proceed against that part of the assets of the deceased Saeedul Zafar which, though it was in the possession of the Assistant Custodian was not in law vested in him as it did not belong to evacuees. 7. The appeal, therefore, succeeds in part. The order dismissing the application for execution is set aside. The case will go back to the executing court to proceed with the executing court to proceed with the execution against that portion of the assets of the deceased which was not evacuee property and which was not vested in the Assistant custodian. As success has been divided, there will be no orders as to costs.