JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - These are two connected Execution First Appeals by judgment - debtors. These appeals have been filed by Abdul Shakur and his wife Mst. Fatima Bibi. Liaqat Husain is the respondent in each appeal. The two appeals raise a common question whether a decree for specific performance of a contract is liable to attachment in execution of a money decree. 2. In 1953 Liaqat Hussain brought against Abdul Shakur and his wife a suit to recover a sum of money. That was Suit No. 67 of 1953. The suit was decreed on 22-12-1956. In the year 1955 Abdul shakui and his wife brought another suit against Liaqat Husain for specific performance of a contract for sale. That was Suit No. 49 of 1955. This second suit was decreed on 27-2-1958. It was ordered that Liaqat Husain defendant would be liable to execute a sale deed in favour of Abdul Shakut and Mst. Fatima Bibi on payment of Rs. 8,000 by the plaintiffs. 3. Liaqat Husain applied for execution of his decree. (No. 67 of 1953) . In that execution he applied for attachment of decree No. 49 of 1955. Abdul Shakur and Mst. Fatima Bibi raised an objection that a decree for specific performance of a con. tract could not be attached. The objection was overruled by the learned Additional Civil Judge of All ad on 30-4. 1963. Execution Firs peal No. 242 of 1963 is directed that order dated 30-4-1963. It pears that after a while that execution application by Liaqat Husain was struck off in default. On 26-8-1963 Liaqat Husain again applied for execution of his decree No. 67 of 1953 by attach. merit of decree No. 49 of 1955. Abdul Shakur and his wife again raised an objection. The objection was again overruled by the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad on 23-3-1964. Execution First Appeal No. 159 of 1964 is directed against that order dated 23-3-1964. 4. I have heard Mr. S.S. Verma for the appellants. No one appeared for the respondent. 5. It will be seen that the question for consideration is whether decree No. 49 of 1955 is liable to be attached in execution of decree No. 67 of 1953. Mr.S. S. Verma urged that a decree for specific performance of a contract cannot be attached. He relied on clause (m) of section 60, C.P.C. Section 60, C.P.C. provides for attachment. It will be seen that the question for consideration is whether decree No. 49 of 1955 is liable to be attached in execution of decree No. 67 of 1953. Mr.S. S. Verma urged that a decree for specific performance of a contract cannot be attached. He relied on clause (m) of section 60, C.P.C. Section 60, C.P.C. provides for attachment. Items under clauses (a) to (p) are not liable to attachment or sale. Clause (m) of Section 60 is : "an expectancy of succession by survivor ship or other merely contingent or possible right or interest;" 6. Suit No. 49 of 1955 was with respect to a certain house. Under the decree the plaintiffs can get the property on payment of Rs. 8,000. Mr. S. S. Verma pointed out that the plaintiffs of Suit No. 49 of 1955 are not entitled to get the house unless they deposit Rs. 8,000. It was, therefore, urged that the interest of the appellants is contingent and not absolute. 7. In Syud Tufuzzool Hussain Khan v. Raghoonath Parshad, XIV M.I.A. 40, it was held by their Lordship of the Privy Council that a mere right of suit is not property. A claim under a future award as to which it is wholly uncertain until the award is made cannot be attached. 8. In Jai Narain v. Kedar Nath, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 359, it was explained that when a decree imposes obligations on both sides which are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance by the other, execution will not be ordered unless the party seeking execution not only offers to perform his side but, when objection is raised, satisfies the executing Court that he is in a position to do so. That principle will come into operation when an attempt is made to execute decree No. 49 of 1955. That principle is of no assistance for deciding whether decree No. 49 of 1955 can be attached in execution of decree No. 67 of 1953. 9. In Rajes Kanta Roy v. Smt. Shanti Devi, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 255, it was held that a mere contingent interest though transferable inter vivos is not attachable. 10. In Ahmad-ud-din Khan v. Majlis Rai, III I.L.R. Alld. 9. In Rajes Kanta Roy v. Smt. Shanti Devi, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 255, it was held that a mere contingent interest though transferable inter vivos is not attachable. 10. In Ahmad-ud-din Khan v. Majlis Rai, III I.L.R. Alld. 12, it was held that the right or interest which the vendor of immovable property has in the purchase money where it has been agreed that the same shall be paid on the execution of the conveyance, is not, so long as the conveyance has not been executed, a debt but a merely possible right or interest, and as such is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. No question of attachment of a decree arose in that case. 11. In Gorakh Singh v. Sidh Gopal, III A.L.J.R. 183, a suit for preemption was decreed. Prior to acquisition of the property by the preemptor a decree-holder attached the property. It was subsequently sold. It was held that what the decree-holder of the preemptor attached was a contingent interest not liable to attachment, and a subsequent acquisition of the property would not validate the attachment. 12. It appears that in Gorakh Singh's case the decree-holder of the preemptor attached the property, which was the subject-matter of the preemption suit on the footing that the preemptor was the owner of the property. That is not the position in the present case. Liaqat Husain is merely attaching the decree itself. So the circumstances of the present case are different from those in Gorakh Singh's case. 13. It may be that under decree No. 49 of 1955, the appellants have got a contingent interest in the house as such. But it is not correct to say that they have got a contingent interest in the decree. They are the owners of the decree. Sec. 51, C.P.C. describes the various modes of execution. Clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. is : "by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property." 14. Under clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. it is open to a decree-holder to attach property belonging to a judgment-debtor in order to put the property to sale. Mr. S. S. Verma conceded that a decree is liable to attachment and sale under clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. But he urged that a decree for specific performance of a contract can. Mr. S. S. Verma conceded that a decree is liable to attachment and sale under clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. But he urged that a decree for specific performance of a contract can. not be attached or sold under clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. There is no reason why such a decree cannot be attached or sold under clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.G. Mr. S. S Verma contended that there may be some difficulty in sale as parties in the two decrees are same. At the present stage it is not necessary to consider the proper mode of sale. At this stage I am merely considering the question whether it is possible to attach the decree in Suit No. 49 of 1955. The fact that this is a decree for specific performance of a contract should not make any difference as regards applicability of clause (b) of Section 51, C.P.C. The two Civil judges were right in holding that it was open to Liaqat Husain to attach decree No. 49 of 1955 in execution of decree No. 67 of 1953. 15. Both the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in these two appeals. The stay orders dated 9-7-1964 and 25-9-1964 are vacated.