MADHAV NANAJI GORE Vs. BADRINARAYAN MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by a judgment -debtor raises a somewhat important question of construction, A decree was passed on December 31, 1953, whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,684 to the decree -holders. Before the decree was passed and while the suit was still pending, the plaintiff applied for an order of attachment before judgment and that order was granted. Under that order certain lands belonging to the judgment -debtor were attached. The order for attachment before judgment was thereafter confirmed and continued after the passing of the decree. The decree -holders thereafter filed an application to recover the decretal amount by sale of the lands attached. The trial Court passed an order directing that the property attached should be sold and a proclamation for the sale thereof should be issued.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, contending that the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, had been made applicable to the village of Rajuri where the lands under attachment were situate, that the Consolidation Officer had stNed certain proceedings under the said Act, that those proceedings were still pending and that, therefore, under Section 27 of that Act the execution proceedings could not be commenced or in any event such proceedings if commenced were liable to be stayed. The learned Civil Judge, who heard that application, came to the conclusion upon, construction of Section 27 that the provisions of that section were not applicable to execution proceedings in respect of a decree passed, which was a money decree, holding that the application of that section was restricted only to decrees of which the subject -matter was land.

(3.) MR . Rele on the other hand contends that the words 'in respect of any land' in Section 27(a) have connection only with the fourth category mentioned in Clause (a) and further that the words 'no proceedings' in that clause must be read disjunctively with each of those four categories. He suggests that upon such a reading of the section, the effect of Section 27 would be restricted merely to decrees for land and not to a money decree.