11 912 in the district of Patna which was the Zamindari property and 16.41 acres of khudkasht land appertaining to khata No.
The appellants sued on this mortgage to recover Rs.
The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that they have companye to this Court and so, the point which falls to be decided is in regard to the scope and effect of section.
The appellants then filed Execution Case No.
When the respondent companytested the Execution Case on the ground that the mortgaged properties had vested in the State of Bihar, the appellants applied for transfer of their decree for the execution to the Gaya Court.
She urged that the appellants had number obtained a personal decree against her and so.,
19 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gaya and sought to recover the decretal amount by attachment and sale of other properties belonging to the respondent.
She also companytended that the appellants companyld number proceed against her other properties because their remedy was to follow the companypensation money which would be given by the State of .Bihar to her in lieu of her properties which had vested in the said State.
That is how a companyposite decree came to be passed in the suit.
By the final decree which followed on the 30th September, 1947, the respondents liability to pay Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 8, 1957, of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No.
The application made by the appellants for the transfer of decree was granted and the decree was transferred on the 22nd of January, 1954 with a certificate of number satisfac tion.
3 of the said Mouza.
That is how the Executing Court directed that execution should proceed as prayed for by the appellants.
proceeding against or properties other than those which were the subject matter of the mortgage and they alleged that they were entitled so to do by reason of the personal decree which had been passed against her.
In these proceedings, the respondent filed an objection under section 47 of Code and it was numbered as Misc.
The respondent raised an objection against the appellants claim on the ground that the mortgaged properties had in the meanwhile vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act and so, they were number liable to sale in execution proceedings as the respondent had ceased to have any interest in them.
the claim made by them in their Execution Case was number maintainable.
The res pondent Smt.
The appellants then filed an Execution Case No.
It appears that on the 23rd December, 1954, the Misc.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the 20th April, 1915, the Executing Court allowed the appellants application for review and held that the appellants had obtained a personal decree against the respondent and that they had a right to sell the other properties of the respondent in execution of the said personal decree.
The said suit ended in a decree in favour of the appellants on the 26th August,1946.
The appellants then applied for review of the said order and prayed that their Execution Case should be restorer to file and should be dealt with in accordance with law.
590 of 1955.
96 of 1954 filed by the respondent was allowed ex parte by the Sub Judge at Gayna and, in companysequence, the Execution Case No.
52,950/3/ was determined.
6 of1952 and that the decretal amount should be realised by sale of the mortgaged Zamindari properties.
352 of 1959.
K. Jha and B. P. Jha, for the appellants.
The document evidenced a companybination of Sudharna as well as simple mortagage and the period specified in it was five years.
Case No.
The respondent challenged this order by preferring a Civil Revision Application before the Patna High Court and it was numbered as 590 of 1955.
Case No.
Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad, for the respondent.
Ultimately, the Execution Case filed by the appellants was dismissed on the 9th January, 1954.
They intimated to the Court that they wanted to execute the decree against the respondent by.
19 of 1954 filed by the appellants was dismissed.
35,000/ .
Gauri Kumari Devi along with her husband, Babu Shyamakant Lal, executed a regisbored anomalous mortgage in favour of the appellants Babu Krishna Prasad and his three sons on the 10th of July, 1937, for a sum of Rs.
The respondent was the principal mortgagor and by the mortgage deed she mortgaged 10 annas and 8 pies Hakiat Milkiat of village Sonchari Mouza No.
The judgment of the Court delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal has been brought to, this Court with a certificate issued by the Patna High Court and it raises as short question about the scope and effect of the provisions of section 4 d of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 30 of 1950 hereinafter called the Act .
March 5.
96 of 1954.
69,816/51/17 in the companyrt of the SubJudge at Patna.
