JUDGMENT R.S. Pathak, J. - This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. 2. A decree upon a secured debt was obtained by the decree-holder and in execution of the decree he took proceedings for attachment and sale of rehabilitation grant bonds belonging to the judgment debtor. It is not disputed that the decree-holder could proceed in satisfaction of his decree against these bonds to the extent of three fourths of the rehabilitation grant. The only question is whether the amount of satisfaction to be entered against the decree will be the face value of these bonds or will be the amount realised on sale thereof. 3. The lower appellate court has held that it is the face value of the bonds which indicates the amount for which the decree must be deemed to have been satisfied, and reliance has been placed in this behalf on rule 98 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Rule 98 provides for the action to be taken by the Rehabilitation Grants Officer when a court or authority, under Sec. 70 if the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, requires him to place at its disposal the amount of rehabilitation grant payable to an intermediary and clause (b) of Rule 98 states that the bonds shall in every case be obtained in the name of the intermediary concerned and that the court or authority will endorse the bonds in favour of the decree-holder where necessary. 4. It is urged that Sec. 70 and rule 98 do not apply to a case where execution is sought against a rehabilitation grant, but only where there is a dispute as to whether the rehabilitation grant should be awarded to the intermediary or to some other person. To my mind it appears unnecessary to decide this contention. The question whether it is the face value or the market value of the rehabilitation bonds which is to be considered for entering satisfaction against the decree is to be determined by reference to Sec. 8(1) (b) of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. To my mind it appears unnecessary to decide this contention. The question whether it is the face value or the market value of the rehabilitation bonds which is to be considered for entering satisfaction against the decree is to be determined by reference to Sec. 8(1) (b) of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. That provision states that a decree relating to a secured debt is executable against the rehabilitation grant payable to the extent of three-fourths "of such grants." The value of the grant is the value shown on the face of the bonds, and not any inherent or intrinsic value or a value which depends on the market for such bonds. How the amount of the rehabilitation grant is to be determined is provided for in Chapter V of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and Sec. 98 in that Chapter declares that the amount of the grant shall be "such multiple of the net assets mentioned in the statement prepared under Sec. 92 as may be applicable in accordance with the table given in Schedule I". It is to three-fourths of this amount to which reference has been made in Sec, 8(1) (b) of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. In my judgment therefore, there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.