RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. SUKHDEO RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the decree holders is directed against the order dated 30 -1 -1973 passed by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, allowing the judgment -debtors' objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit on 27 -5 -1950, which was registered as T.S. 71 of 1950 for petition of Zamindari properties as landlords against the other cosharer landlords, after an adverse order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to plot No. 2137 declaring the present respondents' possession. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the above plot. The respondents whose objection under Section 47 has succeeded were impleaded as party defendants as certain bakasht lands were settled with them by the defendants -landlords. The suit was decreed on 25 -8 -1952 and the appellants were granted a decree for recovery of possession of the settled lands from the settlee respondents. Since the decree was preliminary in nature, proceeding for preparation of final decree were taken. At this stage, a notification under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was published vesting the Zamindari interest in the Stale of Bihar. By Section 6 of the Act, the outgoing landlord in khas possession of bakasht land was allowed to retain the same in the capacity of a raiyat under the State. Subject to this and other provisions of the Act which are not relevant for the present case, the landlord ceased to have any interest in the Zamindari property and suits in regard to the same were dropped under the Act. However, in the present case, a final decree was passed on 29 -7 -1959. A first appeal against the same was filed and was later dismissed for default. The present execution case 14 of 1968 was started by the appellants for executing the final decree. The settlee defendants have successfully challenged the appellant's prayer for delivery of possesion. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that after the passing of the decree, there was a private arrangement between the parties that the judgment debtors would not challenge the claim of the decree holders by way of appeal or otherwise and in consideration whereof the decree holders would not execute their decree for costs, but in breach of the agreement the judgment -debtors filed a first appeal in the High Court which they later abandoned on protest by decree -holders. They cannot now raise any objection to the execution of the decree. The judgment -debtors denied this story and the Court has agreed with them.