SITAL SINGH Vs. RAMJIPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners occupied a holding, a portion of which had been transferred by sale in 1315 Fs. and another portion of which had been mortgaged in 1924 A.D.

(2.) The landlord instituted a suit for arrears of rent and obtained a decree in 1934 before the amended Section 26, Bihar Tenancy Act, had come into force. A portion of the decretal amount was paid off by the judgment-debtor; but the holding was advertised for sale and was about to be sold when the mortgagees stepped in and paid off the balance due under the rent decree and subsequently obtained possession under Section 171, Bihar Tenancy Act. The purchasers objected to this, but their objections were overruled by the Munsif. They have made no application in revision and we are not concerned with their position. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the decree under execution was not a rent decree and also on the ground that the usufructuary mortgagee owed a large amount for arrears of rent. These objections also were overruled and the mortgagees were placed in possession.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the decree under execution could not be regarded as a decree under the Bihar Tenancy Act, because when it was under execution it affected two holdings. Between the time of the signing of the decree and the execution, Section 26-N, Bihar Tenancy Act, came into force by which the landlord was deemed to have given his consent to transfers made before 1923 and to the distribution of rent upon which the vendor and the vendee had agreed.