TEJ SINGH Vs. CHHAIL BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession of plots Nos. 179, 375 and 418 was dismissed by the trial Court on 13-11-1950. The plaintiff filed an appeal, which was allowed by the 1st appellate Court and the suit for possession was decreed. The defendants went up in second appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed on 30-10-1964. After the decision of the second appeal the decree holder applied for possession. The judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. This objection was dismissed, and the first appeal filed against the dismissal of the objection was also dismissed. Hence the present second appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that under Section 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, there is a limitation that the execution be applied within 12 years, and that the decree had become unexecutable, as more than 12 years had elapsed from the decree of the trial Court. The trial Court dis missed the suit on 13-11-1950 and the appeal was allowed on 15-1-1953. There after a second appeal was dismissed on 30-10-1964. It is manifest that the decree of the trial Court merges in the appellate decree. From the appellate decree the application for execution is within limitation. This argument of the learned counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the execution application stands abated. A perusal of that section indicates that it pertains only to all proceedings for correction of records and all suits for declaration of rights and interest over the land, pending before any Court or authority. The execution proceedings are not mentioned in Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. An execution application is not a suit for declaration of rights and interests over the land. The execution appli cation would, therefore, not stand abated under the provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .