RUDRA NARAYAN JANA Vs. NABA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal it appears that on a previous application to this Court by the judgment- debtor-appellant it was directed by an order, dated 19th December 1916, that on the decree holder furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 50,000 in immoveable property the decree- holder should be at liberty to proceed with execution.

(2.) The present appeal by the judgment-debtor is directed against an order accepting the proffered security and directing delivery of possession to the decree-holder of the property forming the subject-matter of the decree. A preliminary objection is taken that against this order no appeal lies and in support of this contention we have been referred to the cases reported as Saraswati Barmonya v. Moti Barmonya 20 Ind. Cas. 72 : 41 C. 160 : 17 C.W.N. 1240; Srinivas Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prosad Singh 12 Ind. Cas. 745 : 14 C.L.J. 489 and to the decision of this Court in Appeal from Order No. 5 of 1916. But these cases in fact show that though against the interlocutory orders or intermediate steps leading up to the final order an appeal may not lie, yet against the final order, in this case the order directing delivery of possession, an appeal will lie. For this proposition there is also authority in Luchmeeput Singh v. Sita Nath Doss 8 C. 477 : 10 C.L.R. 517 : 4 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 305.

(3.) The judgment-debtor took a number of objections to the sufficiency of the security and the learned Subordinate Judge has made the orders referred to above without making any inquiry into the said objections. He was of opinion that for the purposes of the inquiry before him it was unnecessary to enter into "interminable questions of title" and other like matters