Judgment :- 1. In execution of the decree, the first respondent-bank has obtained against the petitioner, the share of the petitioner in the property belonging to a partnership of which she is a partner, has been attached. It is further seen from the order that the court below has also directed sale of the said property. 2. It is the common case of the parties that the decree is against the petitioner in her individual capacity. The petitioner therefore contended before the court below that the properties of the firm of which she is a partner cannot be attached and sold in execution of such a decree. Overruling this objection the court below has directed the sale of the share of the petitioner in the partnership property. The question therefore is, can the decree-holder attach the share of the petitioner in the partnership property and sell the same in execution of the money decree obtained against the petitioner in her individual capacity. 3. It is a principle well established that during the subsistence of the partnership, the right of a partner is only to get his share of profit if any, accruing to the partnership from the realisation of the property and upon dissolution of the partnership to a share in the value of the assets of the firm which remain after satisfying the liabilities set out in clause (a) and sub-clauses (1), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of S.48 of The Partnership Act. During the subsistence of the partnership, no partner can deal with the property of the partnership as his own. During the subsistence of the partnership, a partner however, can assign his share to another and in that case what the assignee would get would be only that which is permitted by S.29 (1) of The Partnership Act, that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits assigned and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. (See Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, A.I.R.1966 S.C. 1300). 4. The question as to whether the decree holder can attach the partnership property in execution of a decree obtained against a partner of a firm in his personal capacity requires to be considered in the light of the law stated above. A reference in this context to 0.21 R.49 is also necessary. 4. The question as to whether the decree holder can attach the partnership property in execution of a decree obtained against a partner of a firm in his personal capacity requires to be considered in the light of the law stated above. A reference in this context to 0.21 R.49 is also necessary. Clause (1) of R.49 provides that the property belonging to a partnership shall not be attached or sold in execution of a decree other than a decree passed against the firm or against all the partners thereof as such. A decree holder however, can proceed against the interest of the partner in the partnership property in the manner laid down in clause (2) of R.49. This clause says that an order creating a charge on the interest of the judgment debtor in the partnership however, could be passed. The court can by the same or a subsequent order also appoint a receiver of the share of such partner in the profits and of any other money which may be coming to him in respect of the partnership and direct accounts and enquiries. Not only that the court can make an order for the sale of such interest. This clause also empowers the court to issue such other orders as might have been directed or made if a charge had been made in favour of the decree holder by such partner or as the circumstances of the case may require. On any such order being passed, the other partner or partners shall be at liberty at any time to redeem the interest charged or in the case of a sale being directed, to purchase the said right, (clause 3). Every application for an order under sub-rule 2 shall be served on the judgment debtor and on his partners or such of them as are within India. Similarly every application made by any partner of the judgment debtor under sub-rule 3 shall be served on the decree holder and on the judgment debtor and on such of the other partners as do not join in the application and as are within India. It is further provided by Clause.6 that service under sub-rule 4 or sub-rule 5 shall.be deemed to be service on all partners, and all orders made on such application shall be similarly served. This in short is the scheme of R.49. 5. It is further provided by Clause.6 that service under sub-rule 4 or sub-rule 5 shall.be deemed to be service on all partners, and all orders made on such application shall be similarly served. This in short is the scheme of R.49. 5. In execution of a decree obtained against a partner in his personal capacity, the property of the partnership cannot therefore be attached although an order charging the interest of such partner in the partnership property etc. contemplated under Clause.2 of R.49 can be passed. An attachment of partnership property in violation of the provisions under R.49 of 0.21 would be bad in law. 6. The order of attachment in dispute, considered in the light of the principles stated above, is liable to be declared invalid. 7. In the light of what is stated above, the finding of the court below that the doctrine of res judicata would disentitle the petitioner to raise the above objections is liable to be vacated. It is all the more so because the property proclaimed for sale indisputably belongs to the firm and not to the judgment-debtor and that the decree sought to be executed is not against the firm. The order under challenge for the reasons stated above is set aside. The C. R. P. is allowed. No costs.