JUDGMENT Niamatullah, J.
1. Tins is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order dismissing his objections to the execution of a decree taken out by the decree-holder against him. Raja Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi obtained a decree for arrears of revenue against Kuar Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi from the Revenue Court. He applied for execution of his decree. A five annas four pies share in village Turkawalia Sahebganj was attached. The judgment-debtor filed objections which have been thrown out by the Court below. The judgment-debtor has come up in appeal to this Court.
2. The first objection taken by the judgment-debtor was that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree sought to be executed and therefore it was a nullity and incapable of execution. It may be stated here that this objection about the want of jurisdiction was unsuccessfully raised by the judgment-debtor in the suit in which the decree, which is now being executed, was passed. But there can be no doubt that it is open to judgment-debtor even at this stage to raise the plea that the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In order to understand the plea of the judgment-debtor, it is necessary to state the following facts which are not disputed : Kuar Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi judgment-debtor and his son instituted a suit against Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi to recover possession over certain properties. On 7th March 1919, the suit ended in a compromise which provided that the present decree-holder, the proprietor of Tamkohi Raj, granted three villages to the judgment-debtor and his son for their maintenance as "junior members" of the family. It was agreed that villages so granted will continue to form part of the Tam kohi Raj and will revert to the Raj in case of failure of male issue in the line of the grantee and shall stand recorded in the Government Registers in the name of Raja Indarjit Pratab Bahadur Sahi and his successors in the Raj, and Raja Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi and his successors will pay the Government demand fixed and assessed...that it will be incumbent on Kuar Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi and his male descendants to pay to Raja Inderjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi and his successors in the Raj the amount of the Government demands in respect of the said villages....
3. The suit was decided in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The decree-holder brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the judgment-debtor to recover the Government revenue which he had paid in respect of the three villages granted to the judgment debtor and which according to the terms of the compromise the judgment-debtor was liable to pay. The plea taken by the judgment-debtor was that such a suit was not within the cognizance of the Revenue Court. It was urged that such a suit was maintainable only in civil Court. We are of opinion that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no force. Section 224, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) provides that a taluqdar or other superior proprietor may sue for arrears of revenue or rent due to him as such in the Revenue Court. This section is clearly applicable to the case before us. From the terms of the compromise under which the judgment-debtor holds the three villages, it is clear that the decree-holder is the "superior proprietor" of these villages. It is agreed that the villages will continue to form part of the Raj and shall stand recorded in the Government registers in the name of the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor is to enjoy possession over these villages subject to two conditions. One is that he agrees to pay to the decree-holder the yearly Government demands. The other is that the villages revert to the Raj in case of failure of male issue in the line of the grantee. The position of the judgment-debtor, under the terms of the compromise is that of an "inferior proprietor" and therefore under the provisions of Section 224, Agra Tenancy Act, the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court.
4. The other plea taken by the judgment-debtor was that the decree could be executed only against the village in respect of which the land revenue was due. This contention was not seriously pressed before us and we are of opinion that it is not well founded. The decree-holder has obtained a personal decree against the judgment-debtor and it is open to him to recover the amount due by putting to sale any property of the judgment-debtor. In our opinion, the objections of the judgment-debtor were rightly dismissed by the trial Court. We dismiss the appeal with costs.