Execution of redemption decree extends to accretions in pledged shares, including bonus shares arising from the original pledge.

Execution courts may determine whether property claimed in execution forms part of the decree, and a separate suit is not required where the controversy is directly connected with execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. On that basis, a claim to additional "B" shares arising from pledged "A" shares could be raised under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The additional shares, issued on capitalisation of profits and received because of the original pledge, were treated as accessions to the pledged property. Applying the principle reflected in section 163 of the Indian Contract Act, the increase followed the pledged shares and was recoverable by the pledgee or her representative.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent could raise, in execution proceedings, the claim to the additional "B" shares as part of the decree for redemption of the pledged "A" shares; (ii) whether the "B" shares were accretions or accessions belonging with the pledged shares and therefore redeemable by the respondent.

Issue (i): whether the respondent could raise, in execution proceedings, the claim to the additional "B" shares as part of the decree for redemption of the pledged "A" shares.

Analysis: Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree fall within the jurisdiction of the executing court. The controversy whether the expression "issues" or "Bachan" in the decree and application covered the additional shares was directly connected with execution of the redemption decree and did not require a separate suit.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to proceed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): whether the "B" shares were accretions or accessions belonging with the pledged shares and therefore redeemable by the respondent.

Analysis: The additional shares were issued by the company upon capitalisation of profits and were received by the trustees by reason of their holding of the original pledged shares. Such shares could not be separated from the rights attaching to the pledged property. The principle embodied in section 163 of the Indian Contract Act required delivery of increase or profit arising from the bailed goods, and the same reasoning applied to the pledged shares.

Conclusion: The "B" shares were accessions to the pledged "A" shares and were recoverable by the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputes whether property claimed in execution is an accession or increase of pledged property, and therefore covered by the decree, are determinable by the executing court; where additional shares arise from the original pledged shares through capitalisation, they follow the pledged shares and are recoverable by the pledgee or her representative.

---