Desai, C. J.
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Nigam dismissing the appellant's objection to the execution of a decree against him. The decree was a compromise decree and the relevant parts of it are paragraphs 4 and 5 which read as follows :
'4. That Syed Akhtar Ahsan be declared to be the owner of 1 1/2 pie share out of. Raja Deo Singh's share of the villages..... together with mesne profits from thedate on which the Court of Wards gave its formal recognition to Raja Deo Singh as its ward upto the date of Zamindari Abolition.'
''5. The amount of mesne profits due to Syed Akhtar Ashan .... shall be calculated by the parties. .... and the figure arrived at shall be payable by Raja Deo Singh to the appellant for the payment of the amount to be found due to the appellant to the manner aforesaid it has beenagreed between the parties re: Syed Akhtar Ahsan and Raja Deo Singh that the appellant shall be entitled to get the said amount out of the compensation bond payable to Raja Deo Singh for his share direct from the Compensation Officer.'
It may be mentioned that Sri Akhtar Ahsan the respondent before us was the respondent and Raja Deo Singh was the appellant in that appeal in which the compromise decree was passed. The amount due from the appellant to the respondent under paragraph 4 was calculated and it was found to be Rs. 7,000/- and odd. The respondent-applied for execution of the decree by attachment of the compensationbonds in possession of the Compensation Officer on the appellant's account and bonds of the face value of Rs. 19,000/- were attached. The appellant filed an objection to the attachment claiming that bonds of the face value of Rs. 7,000/- and odd, the amount found to be due from him to the respondent, only could be attached in execution of the decree and not bonds of the face value of a larger amount on the ground that their market value is less. The objection was dismissed by the execution Court and the appellant's appeal was dismissed by our brother Nigam.
2. After having heard Sri B.K. Dhaon and Sri M.K. Seth we are left in no doubt that the objection of the appellant was sound and must be sustained. We have no doubt that what the parties intended was that the respondent should get under the compromise bonds of the face value of the amount found to be due to him from theappellant and not bonds of the market value of that amount. The words used in the compromise are 'amount payable'; 6ut these are also the words used in the Zammdari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the rules framed thereunder for payment of the compensation to intermediaries in the form of bonds. Section 28 provides that 'compensation tor acquisition' of estates under the Act shall be due as from the date of vesting and that in the case of the amount to be given in bonds there shall be paid interest from the date of vesting to the date of redemption of the bonds. Section 54 provides that 'the amount payable as compensation' shall be at a certain rate. Section 55 deals with the amount of compensation payable to a thekedar. Section 65 provides that
'there shall be paid to every intermediary as compensation in respect of the acquisition of his rights, title and Interest in every estate the amount declared in that behalf under Section 60'.
Under Section 66 the compensation is declared to be payable to the intermediary whose name is entered in the compensation Assessment Roll. Under Section 68 the compensation payable under the Act is required to be given 'in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds as may be prescribed.' Where in any Court any suit or proceeding is pending which directly or indirectly affects the right of any person to receive the compensation the Court may require the Compensation Officer to place at its disposal the amount so payable and thereupon the sameshall be disposed of in accordance with the orders of the Court; vide Section 70. If a person claims any portion or the compensation awarded to an intermediary on account of guzara he may apply to the Compensation Officer for payment of the same to him and the Compensation Officer may direct the compensation to be paid to him and the payment of the amount to him shall be full discharge of the State Government. Chapter IV of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Rules deals with payment of compensation. Rule 62 provides that 'Compensation shall be paid in negotiabte bonds.' Rules 70, 75, 76 and 84 refer to'amount of compensation' and payment of it. Where under Section 70 a Court requires the Compensation Officer to place at its disposal the amount of compensation how the Compensation Officer should proceed is explained in Rule 84-A; he is required to place at the disposal of the Court bonds to the extent of the amount required by the Court. In all these provisions the reference to the amount of bonds is to the amount of the face value of the bonds and there is no reference in any of the provisions to the market value of the bonds. The bonds are negotiable bonds and it is quite likely that the market value of the bonds is different from the face value, but, for the purposes of the Act and the Rules the value of the bonds is always taken to be the face value.
3. When the parties entered into a compromise they obviously meant that the bonds of the face value of the amount calculated to be due from the appellant to the respondent would be given to the respondent; had they intended that the bonds of the market value of that amount should be given to him one would have expected express words to that effect in the compromise. The reference to the bonds and the amount found due meant bonds of the face value of that amount. This was made clearer by the provision that the respondent was to get the bonds direct from the Compensation Officer. It is immaterial that the Compensation Officer cannot give the bonds direct to the respondent [because he has to prepare them in the name of the appellant who was the intermediary], the tact still remains that the parties did contemplate that the respondent would get from the Compensation Officer bonds of the amount found to be due to him. The Compensation Officer would never take into consideration the market value of the bonds; whenever he has to give bonds in lieu of money, he will always give bonds of the face value equal to the amount to be paid. Even when he has to place at the disposal of a Court bonds of a certain amount he places bonds of the face value, and not the market value, of that amount at the disposal of the Court. When he has to give the bonds to an intermediary he gives him bonds of the face value of the compensation payable to him and it would be incongruous if he was to give to his creditor bonds of the market value of that amount. We, therefore, hold that bonds of the face value of the amount found to be due from the appellant to the respondent were liable to be attached.
4. We allow this appeal, set aside the order of theexecuting Court, allow the objection of the appellant anddirect release from attachment of the bonds of the facevalue exceeding the amount of Rs. 7,100/-. The bonds ofthe face value of Rs. 7,100/- only shall be attached fordelivery to the respondent. The amount due to him isRs. 7.139/11/6/- and the appellant undertakes to pay thebalance of Rs. 39/11/6 in cash to the respondent beforethe executing Court. The appellant will get his costs throughout from the respondent.