BASANGAL SAYANNA Vs. YELLIAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor has filed this second appeal against the concurrent orders of the executing Court dismissing his objection. The facts are not in dispute. A decree for the possession of certain immovable properties in favour of the respondent was passed on October 20, 1952. The appellant appears, however, to have obtained a tenancy certificate, which is dated September 10, 1951. It is admitted that no objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court on the basis of the appellant being a tenant and the dispute being entertainable by the revenue authorities, was raised in the the suit. Indeed, the appellant had in the suit raised the plea of being the purchaser, which was rejected. The decree-holder, who is respondent No. 1 has since got possession of 12 holdings, and when the decree was being executed against the remaining properties an objection was raised on November 4,1953. It was then claimed that the appellant was the protected tenant and the decree by the Civil Court could not be executed against him. At that stage, the tenancy certificate was filed. The Court of first instance dismissed the objection. The appeal by the debtor has also been dismissed, where against this second appeal has been filed.

(2.) The Advocate of the appellant has argued the following points for the decree not being executable:-

(3.) It will be useful at this stage to quote four Sections of the Act, as they had been relied on before me for ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court and making the decree in executable on grounds of public policy. They are:-