1. The respondent obtained a simple money decree against the assets of a deceased Hindu to whom the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act was applicable. By reason of Section 16 of the Act, the decree-holder was unable to put the property to sale. He has been given in lieu thereof a lease which doss not exceed the form of lease which it would have been open to the deceased himself to give under Section 11 of the Act. The appellant here has contended that this in effect amounts to attaching the profits to which the Hindu widow would be entitled. He has relied upon a decision of two Judges of this Court in Rani Kanno Dai v. B.J. Lacy  19 All. 235. This case has bean considered by the Madras High Court, but we do not consider it necessary to pursue that further, as we are of opinion that it does not support the appellant's case, but on the other hand defeats it. All that was held in that case was that a creditor who had got a decree against the assets of a deceased Hindu, could not apply for a receiver to be put in charge of the rents of the widow's estate. Nothing more was really held than that he could not proceed against the profits which had already accrued to the widow, whether they had actually come into her pocket or whether they had not, and there was a further suggestion underlying one single phrase in the judgment that future profits could not be affected. It is contended on the strength of this ruling that the profits to which a Hindu widow is entitled under all circumstances are inviolable. Counsel went to the extent of suggesting that when a Hindu died sonless leaving a widow, his assets could not be attached at all. This position eventually had to be abandoned. The very case quoted is direct authority, if indeed authority was necessary, that the property could be sold, though of course that would have the effect of depriving the Hindu widow of future profits.
2. Apart then from the Bundelkhand Land. Alienation Act, there cannot be the least doubt that the estate could have been sold after attachment in execution of the simple money decree as being the assets of the deceased judgment-debtor. In the present case, the actual sale is prohibited by Section 16, Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. That is only because the owner himself could-not have sold, and therefore the Court is barred from doing that which the owner could not himself, have done. There is no reason whatever, why a decree should not be executed by the Court doing anything which the deceased debtor could himself have done. He could give a lease in accordance with the terms of Section 11, Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act, and there is therefore no reason why the decree should not be executed by the giving of such a lease. That is all that has been done in this case. If authority were needed in support of this, reference may be made to Sardarni Datar Kuar v. Ram Rattan A.I.R. 1920 Lah. 456, the decision of a Full Bench. We are satisfied therefore that there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.