NANHELAL Vs. JAMNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The details of the execution case and "Collector's case" that led up to this suit are obscure, but both seem to have proceeded mainly on the common misunderstanding of the position of a Collector executing a decree under Section 9, Tenancy Act, and Section 68, Civil P.C. He is in those circumstances the Judge of a civil Court to which the deavee has been transferred for execution, but his powers are limited to those which the Court from which the decree was transferred to him could exercise in the execution of the decree only. The Collector has no power to enquire into objections to attachment or applications for rateable distribution or matters of that kind.

(2.) ONE instance of the lack of clear thought that has led to the large number of irrelevant complications in the case is that the decree of the first Court orders that the money to be paid to the plaintiffs is to be a charge on a certain sum of Rs. 150 which has been paid to the defendants, this decree was confirmed in the Court of the District Judge on the finding that the defendants could not claim exoneration of the charge from the purchase money received by them.

(3.) THE facts are these : The appellants held a decree or decrees for the payment of about Rs. 300 against the respondent Imrat Jadam, in execution of which they brought his absolute occupancy holding in the village of Dhondhai to sale and bought it themselves for Rs. 80. The sale was confirmed on 5th, January 1924. The, respondents other than Imrat Jadam who are "the malguzar" of Dhondhai, then applied to a revenue officer for pre-emption under Section 9, Tenancy Act, and the price was fixed at Rs. 150 on 3rd August, 1925. Within 15 days thereafter the malguzar deposited that sum in the revenue Court.