1. The respondents, holders of a decree for realization of Rs. 17,094-10-1 from the estate of the late Balarama Doss 'in the hands of 1st and 7th defendants and other persons not before this Court, claimed an order for attachment and sale. The lower Court's order under appeal granted execution. It is contended that it did so wrongly against the 1st and 7th defendants' share of the estate, because subsequently to the decree they became insolvents and their share with their other properties vested in the Official Receiver. 1st and 7th defendants held as heirs of Balaram Doss, and that fact cannot be altered by the embodiment of the rights of the latter's creditors in a decree. The property of a deceased Hindu is not so hypothecated for his debt as to prevent his heir disposing of it or to allow a creditor lo follow it in the hands of a third party.' Veerasokka Raju v. Papiah 13 M.L.J. 258. There is, therefore, no question of respondent's right to a lien or charge on Balaram Doss property in 1st and 7th defendants' hands or in those of the Official Receiver who derived it from them. Section 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been relied on by respondents. But it merely states the extent to which and manner in which debts, such as respondents', can be recovered and in no way provides for the reservation of property to satisfy them. Balaram Doss estates must accordingly be treated as having vested in the Official Receiver like 1st and 7th defendants' other assets and as being immune from execution proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, respondents being left to prove their debts like other unsecured creditors.
2. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, the lower Court's order so far as it affects 1st and 7th defendants being set aside and respondents' petition being dismissed as against them and the Official Receiver with costs in both Courts.