SHAMRAV BAPUJI Vs. KAMALNAYAN JAMANLALJI BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will govern First Appeal No. 75 of 1940 and First Appeal No. 76 of 1940. They turn on a construction of Section 9, C.P. Tenancy Act (Act I [1] of 1920). One is by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

(2.) ONE Kautikabai was the absolute occupancy tenant of the fields in suit. They can be divided into two groups and it will be convenient to speak of them as two fields. One, comprising five K NOS., was known as the Bhonslawala field, and the other, comprising KI No. 88, was known as Bhivseni. Both are situate in mouza Digras of which the defendant is the lambardar. Kautikabai's rent fell into arrears and so the defendant instituted civil Suit No. 2 of 1930 against her for the arrears. He obtained a decree (EX. D-13) for Rs. 565-4-6 on 4th August 1930. He applied for execution, and the o Form was sent to the Collector. On 6th October 1934 the Collector ordered both sets of fields to be sold (Ex. D-15).

(3.) SOME years before the first rent suit was launched, namely in 1927, the plaintiff had filed a suit for money (Civil Suit No. 16 of 1927) against Kautikabai and certain others with whom we are not concerned. The parties compromised, and the plaintiff was given a consent decree on 23rd April 1930. This decree created a charge for Rs. 55,000 on the plaint fields and certain other property. The judgment in that suit is Ex. P-6. It will be observed that the charge was created during the pendency of the first rent suit but before the sale and before the decree. In execution the plaintiff brought the Bhonslawala field to sale and purchased it himself on 28th June 1937. When he tried to take possession he was resisted by the defendant who had already been placed in possession in execution of his own decrees.