BHUBAN MAHANANDIA Vs. PARAMESWAR SA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two of the judgment-debtors are petitioners in this application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. which is directed against rejection of an objection under Section 47 of the Code in an execution case instituted to execute the decree obtained in Money Suit No. 68 of 1974 from the Subordinate Judge of Sundergarh.

(2.) The said suit was filed by the opposite party to recover the consideration money, registration expenses and costs of improvement to the lands totalling Rupees 5,600/-. On 18-10-1968, the four defendants of the suit had sold 1.30 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-by a registered sale deed. In Miscellaneous Case No. 81 of 1972 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sundergarh, under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the transfer was declared as void as it was in contravention of Section 22 of that Act and restoration of possession was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. On 11-11-1973, the defendants forcibly took away possession of the property along with the standing crop. That led to the suit. The defendants entered contest and claimed that the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that the alienation was contrary to law and against public policy. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, decreed the suit in full by judgment dated 19-11-1977. A decree followed. The plaintiff instituted execution case No. 8 of 1978 to recover the decretal dues. Therein, an application was filed under Section 47 of the Code to the effect that the decree was a nullity and the amount was not recoverable in view of the provision in Section 23 (4) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act which came into the statute book by Amending Act 44 of 1976 with effect from 25th Oct. 1976. That objection has been overruled by the executing court. That is why two of the judgment-debtors have carried this revision application. The other two judgment-debtors have not been impleaded in the proceeding.

(3.) It must first be pointed out that the impugned order of the executing court has become final against defendants 2 and 3 who were also judgment-debtors in the execution proceeding in the absence of any challenge by them. They have also not been impleaded as opposite parties in this application. Reversal of the decision of the executing court would bring about contradictory orders.