1. In this case the property, in respect of which execution was sought, consisted of a single revenue-paying estate, part of which lies within the district of Backergunge and part within the district of Furreedpore. The decree, affecting the whole of this property, was obtained in the Backergunge district: and the suit having been instituted after the new Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 1877, came into force, Section 19 of that Act was applicable to the case. The decree-holder applied to have the whole of the revenue-paying estate sold in execution of his decree. The Subordinate Judge rejected this application in so far as that portion of the revenue-paying estate situate within the Furreedpore district is concerned, and he apparently allowed the execution to proceed so far as concerns that portion of the property situate within the Backergunge district. It is now contended in appeal before us, that the Subordinate Judge ought to have allowed execution to proceed in his Court against the whole revenue-paying estate, although only a portion of the estate is situate in Backergunge. We think that this contention is correct. It is supported by the case of Kally Prosunno Bose v. Dinonath Mullick 11B.L.R. 56; S.C. 19 W.R. 434 which has been several times followed in this Court; and we may further observe, that the change introduced by Section 19 of the present Code has been accepted as applicable to execution-proceedings also. The case, of course, would be very different if the property consisted of different talooks or different revenue-paying estates, the whole of any one or more of which was situate within the Furreedpore district. This appeal must be decreed and the order of the Subordinate Judge set aside. He is directed to allow the execution to proceed in respect of the whole property.