BAIJ NATH PRASAD Vs. KHEDU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection is taken that neither the revisions nor the: second appeals are competent.

(2.) The facts on which the preliminary objections are based are simple and short. It appears that Khedu Ram was the judgment debtor in execution of a simple money decree. In execution of the decree two items of his property were sold, one was purchased, by Baij Nath Prasad, the applicant in Civil Revision No. 276 of 1932, and appellant in E. S. A., No. 1312 of 1931. The other item of property was purchased by Lachhmi Prasad who is the applicant in Revision No. 277 of 1932 and appellant in E.S.A., No. 1313 of 1931.

(3.) When the auction purchasers applied for delivery of possession of the properties purchased by them they were resisted by the judgment-debtors on the allegation that they were in possession not on their own behalf but under two persons, Gauri Shanker and Hira Lal, who were mortgagees of the property. The learned Munsif found that this was so and disallowed the application of the auction purchasers for delivery of physical possession. He, however, allowed symbolical possession.