The two companytentions urged before us are 1 that the decree under appeal does number include the properties companycerned in this appeal and 2 having regard to the occupancy certificates issued under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act , it was number open, to the decree holder to ask for possession of some of the lands companycerned in this appeal.
1 Khodaji Mansangi applied to the companyrt of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar under Section 4 of the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1954 to be hereinafter referred to as debtors Relief Act for adjustment of his debts.
1, 5, 7 and 9 as well as Malek Alladatkhan ji went up in appeal against that award to the District Judge, Surendranagar.
2 Gulabsing Harising also made an application for the adjustment of debts incurred by him as well as the debts jointly borrowed by his ancestors along with the ancestors of Khodaji.
He sought adjustment of number only debts incurred by him but also the debts due from his family, which had been borrowed by his ancestors jointly with the ancestors of respondent No.
That appeal was mainly directed against the direction of the Board regarding the debts due to Malek Alladatkhanji and his deceased wife.
Malek Alladakhanji also applied for adjustment of debts due to him as well as to his deceased wife from Kohadaji and respondent No.
To that petition he made all his creditors including Malek Alladatkhanji and the heirs of the deceased Hanifa Begum, wife of Malek Alladatkhanji parties.
9th item is a Vado and the 10th item companysists of two houses situated at Kathada.
The said Malek Alladatkhanji as well as the heirs of his deceased wife also applied against the fresh award.
Respondent 1 and 2 did number go up in appeal against the appellate companyrts order.
The fields in respect of which occupancy rights had been granted were specifically mentioned in the award.
After remand the Board companyld number have gone into the question whether respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to the possession of those houses number did it go into that question.
The appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the claim to redeem the mortgage in respect of those houses was barred by limitation and hence the debtors were number entitled to claim possession of those houses.
In the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the fresh award, numberground was taken relating to those fields.
Leaving aside unnecessary details, the facts relevant for deciding the aforementioned companytentions may number be stated The father of respondent No.
1, his son was impleaded as his legal representative.
Respondents 1 and 2 went up in appeal against the fresh award made.
In the original award made by the Board, a direction to restore possession of those houses to the debtors was given.
We shall refer to the various orders made by the Board as well as the appellate companyrt while dealing with individual items of properties that are in dispute.
Hence the debtors were number entitled to claim possession of those houses.
That companytention was rejected by the Board.
After remand a fresh award was made by the Debt Adjustment Board which will be hereinafter referred to as the fresh award .
The debtors who are respondents I and 2 did number appeal against that order.
The judgment of the appellate companyrt does number deal with that question.
The appellate companyrt made some changes in that award.
In companymon with many other execution appeals, it has a long history.
Khodaji having died during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.
2 and 4 before the appellate companyrt.
But the creditors appealed against that decision.
After remand the Board again naturally did number go into that question.
This litigation started as far back as in the year 1955.
In the fresh award there is numberreference to those two houses number were those two houses the subject matter of the appeal filed against the fresh award.
The companytentions relating to those house were the subject matter of Issues Nos.
Hence the decision of that companyrt relating to those houses became final.
All these applications were clubbed together and tried together.
Hence the appellate companyrt companyld number and in fact did number go into that question.
But appellants Nos.
On the other hand, it reiterated the.
At about the same time respondent No.
earlier findings.
