JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a decree-holders' Second Appeal. A decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain land was passed. The judgment-debtor, Karan Singh, was a sirdar of two out of the four plots of land, which he had agreed to sell to the decree-holder. Sirdari land could not be sold unless Karan Singh acquired bhumidhari rights at the time when the decree was passed. He could do so by acquisition of these rights under S. 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It, however, appears that Karan Singh died on the 24th Mar. 1974, while he was still a sirdar of two out of the four plots of land. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by an application, D/- 23rd July, 1974, praying that although the amount of the sale consideration amounting to Rs. 6,000/- had been deposited in court, the judgment-debtor had not executed a sale-deed in favour of the decree-holder and had died on the 24th Mar, 1974. Execution of the decree by specific performance of the contract by the execution of a sale-deed was sought against his heirs and legal representatives. This execution application, dated the 23rd July, 1974, bears an office report, dated the 17th Aug. 1974, and that is the date of its presentation according to the order sheet of the Execution Case No. 37 of 1974. 2. An objection under S. 47 of the Civil PC which was registered as Misc. Case No. 43 of 1975, was thereupon filed, pleading that the execution of the decree was not possible against the heirs of Karan Singh, the original judgment debtor; that the land was sirdari and no sale deed can be executed in respect of the sirdari land; that bhumidhari rights, if acquired by the objector, even if he is compelled to acquire those rights, would be his personal bhumidhari rights, hence no sale deed could be executed in the case. It was further pleaded that Udai Raj Singh, one of the legal heirs and representatives of Karan Singh had died and his heirs had not been brought on the record. The decree-holder appears to have filed certified copies of papers which show that two separate applications dated the 7th Aug. It was further pleaded that Udai Raj Singh, one of the legal heirs and representatives of Karan Singh had died and his heirs had not been brought on the record. The decree-holder appears to have filed certified copies of papers which show that two separate applications dated the 7th Aug. 1974 for depositing 20 times the revenue in respect of the two plots, of which Karan Singh was one of the sirdars, were made as they were situate in two different villages and that the tehsildar ordered the issue of sanad bhumidhari on the two applications separately on the 7th Sept. 1974. Certified copies of the Khatauni show that two sanads bhumidhari Nos. 29/25433 and 29/25434, both dated the 7th Sept. 1974 were issued in respect of one half share of Karan Singh son of Jai Ram in respect of the two plots in the, two villages separately of which he was a co-sirdar with others, and that he was declared a bhumidhar of his one half share in those two plots in the two villages. The Khataunis also show that Karan Singh was a co-bhumidhar along with others of the other two plots in the two villages. A certified copy of an order, dated 8th July, 1974 of the Naib Tahsildar. Bulandshahr in mutation case has also been filed, which shows that on the death of Karan Singh son of Jai Ram, the names of Udai Raj and Diwan Singh sons of Jai Ram were ordered to be mutated as his heirs in respect of Khata No. 69 of village Bhaisora which related to the plot (along with other plots) of which Karan Singh was a co- bhumidhar along with others. By an order, dated 19th April 1976, the executing court allowed the objection of Diwan Singh. The executing court held following the decision of this Court in Ram Deo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1968 All 262 , that bhumidhari rights could not be acquired in favour of a dead person, and if acquired after the death of the judgment debtor they would be the personal property of his heirs and the decree against him could not be executed in respect of the same. The decree holder's appeal therefrom was dismissed by the court of the Third Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, on the 14th July, 1977. The decree holder's appeal therefrom was dismissed by the court of the Third Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, on the 14th July, 1977. The instant Second Appeal was preferred in this court on the 14th Oct. 1977. In the meanwhile, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 8 of 1977 and bhumidhari rights came to be conferred on all sirdars. It appears that the decree-holder wanted to rely on the change in law and the following were the two questions formulated by this court while issuing notice after hearing under O. 41'R. 11 of the Civil PC :- "The substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in this appeal is in regard to the effect of the amendments made in Ss. 130, and 131 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by U. P. Act No. 8 of 1977. The other such question, which arises, is whether the execution application could be dismissed even in respect of that portion of the land which was from the very inception Bhumidhari land." 3. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that the proceedings for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights that were taken in this case after the death of Karan Singh were wholly invalid. Ram Deo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation; AIR 1968 All 262 : 1967 All WR 578; Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajadhari, 1971 All LJ 937 : ( AIR 1971 All 526 ) (FB) and Raghunandan Singh v. Yashwant Singh; 1978 Rev Dec 183 : (1978 All LJ 435). 4. The first question which was formulated as above is also easily answered by saying that the amendments made in Ss. 130 and 131 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 did not enure to the benefit of the decree-holder. The Bhumidhari rights with the right to transfer the land, which were conferred by cl. (b) of S. 130 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act on every person who, immediately before the date of commencement of the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977 (U. P. Act no. 8 of 1977) was a sirdar referred to in either cl. (a) or cl. (c) of S. 131 as it stood immediately before the said date i.e.. 8 of 1977) was a sirdar referred to in either cl. (a) or cl. (c) of S. 131 as it stood immediately before the said date i.e.. before the commencement of U. P. Act No. 8 of 1977, enured to the benefit of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor alone, on the ratio of Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd; 1961 All LJ 716 : ( AIR 1961 SC 1790 ). which is a decision of the Supreme Court and has been relied upon by the Division Bench in Baijnath v. Lakshmi Narain 1971 All LJ 194: ( AIR 1971 All 398 ). for arriving at a similar result. 5. This brings me to the consideration of the second question which was formulated as above. The agreement dated 17-8-71. Ext. I which is the basis of the suit, shows that the four plots of land agreed to be sold by Karan Singh to the plaintiff were plot No. 45 having an area of 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas, 15 Biswansis, and plot No. 455 having an area of 10 Biswansis total 2 Bighas, 8 Biswas 5 Biswansis, in village Bhaisora, and plot No. 427 Ka having an area of 3 Bighas 4 Biswas 10 Biswansis, and plot no. 427 Kha having an area of 1 Bigha 7 Biswas 15 Biswansis, in village Dhansoorpur. Extract from Khatauni of village Bhaisora shows that plot no. 45 Ka having an area of 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas 15 Biswansis, was held as bhumidhari in Khata No. 69 by the deceased Karan Singh along with others, while plot no. 45 Kha having an area of 10 Biswansis was held by him as a co-sirdar in Khata no. 237 along with others. The remark that bhumidhari rights had been conferred in respect of last mentioned plot may be ignored in view of the finding that the conferment of the said rights was invalid. The extract from Khatauni of village Dhansoorpur shows that plot no. 427 Ka having an area of 3 Bighas, 4 Biswas, 10 Biswansis was held by Karan Singh as a co- bhumidhar in Khata no. 67 along with others while plot no. 427 Kha having an area of 1 Bigha 7 Biswas 15 Biswansis was held by him as a co-sirdar along with others in Khata no. 242. 427 Ka having an area of 3 Bighas, 4 Biswas, 10 Biswansis was held by Karan Singh as a co- bhumidhar in Khata no. 67 along with others while plot no. 427 Kha having an area of 1 Bigha 7 Biswas 15 Biswansis was held by him as a co-sirdar along with others in Khata no. 242. The several Khatas in the two villages are separate from each other and it is not disputed that Karan Singh's share was one-half. There could, therefore, be no difficulty in executing the decree for specific performance in respect of plot no. 45 Ka having an area of 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas, 15 Biswansis in village Bhaisora and plot no. 427 Ka having an area of 3 Bighas 4, Biswas 10 Biswansis, in village Dhansoorpur, held by Karan Singh as co-bhumidhar along with others, in respect of his one-half share in the said plots. The fact that plot no. 45 of which Karan Singh was a co-bhumidhar in village Bhaisora has been described merely as 45 in the agreement and in the execution application also but is described as plot no. 45 Ka in the Khatauni, should not create any difficulty inasmuch as the area and all other particulars of the plot tally and it is not suggested that Karan Singh was a bhumidhar of any plot other than the plot which is described as plot no. 45 Ka having an area of 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas, 15 Biswansis, in the extract from Khatauni of village Bhaisora. The description of the plot in the Khatauni is to be preferred to the description in the agreement. 6. Sri Rajesh Tandon, counsel for the Respondent argued that this point was not raised in the courts below. The fact, however, remains that it was the respondent who had objected to the execution of the decree in respect of the land of which Karan Singh was a Sirdar. I have already reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment the grounds which were taken by the respondent in his objection under S. 47 of the Civil P.C. There was no objection that the decree was not executable even in respect of the land of which Karan Singh, the deceased judgment-debtor, was the bhumidhar. I have already reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment the grounds which were taken by the respondent in his objection under S. 47 of the Civil P.C. There was no objection that the decree was not executable even in respect of the land of which Karan Singh, the deceased judgment-debtor, was the bhumidhar. Indeed, it has specifically been said in the last sentence of para 3 of the objection dated 29-7-75 that the decree could have been executed only in respect of bhumidhari land inherited by the objector as such. 7. The effect of the execution of the decree in part only and the finding that it is not executable in respect of that land of which Karan Singh was a Sirdar, on the right of the respondent to realise the amount of Rs. 6000/- which was deposited in the executing court, shall be determined by that court in accordance with law when an application for refund of that amount is made after the execution of the sale deed in pursuance of this judgment. 8. The appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and decree under appeal is modified. The respondent's objection under S. 47 of the Civil P.C. is allowed only in respect of two plots no. 45 Kha having an area of 10 Biswansis in village Bhaisora and plot no. 427 Kha having an area of 1 Bigha, 7 Biswas, 15 Biswansis, in village Dhansoorpur. The decree is held to be executable in respect of the remaining two plots, viz., plot no. 45 Ka having an area of 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas 15 Biswansis, of village Bhaisora and plot no. 427 Ka having an area of 3 Bighas, 4 Biswas, 10 Biswansis, of village Dhansoorpur to the extent of one-half share of the deceased judgment-debtor Karan Singh in those plots. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.