PADHYE, J. - (1.)IN civil Suit No. 22 of 1983 the Village Sanitation Panchayat Committee, Morsi through its secretary instituted a suit against one Makkalal and obtained a decree. Execution was also taken out and a portion of the decretal amount was realized by the Village Sanitation Committee. On 21st May 1936 Makkalal died and his minor sons were brought on record as legal representatives.
(2.)ON 22nd March 1937 a notification was published whereby the Village Sanitation Panchayat Committee was abolished and its assets and liabilities were taken by the Municipal Committee, Morsi, which was established in that town. The name of the Municipal Committee was substituted as decree-holder according to the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code. The Municipal Committee thereafter took out several executions and realized decretal amounts in part. The decree was also transferred to the Collector for execution as early as January 1938 and as usual the execution case was pending there for more than 6 or 7 years. In the intervening period the judgment-debtors had also applied for instalments being granted to them and in fact the balance unrealized out of the decretal amount was made payable by instalments.
Taking advantage of the decision in The Chairman, Village Sanitation Panchayat, Morsi v. Abdul Kadir A.I.R. (29) 1942 Nag. 114 the judgment-debtors for the first time several years after the decree and also after the substitution of the name of the Municipal Committee as decree-holder objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the decree was passed in favour of the Village Sanitation Panchayat which was a non-juristic person and as such the decree was a nullity and incapable of being executed. This objection prevailed in the Gourds below and the Municipal Committee Morsi has filed the present miscellaneous (second) appeal.

(3.)IT was not disputed in this case that the Village Sanitation Panchayat was a nonjuristic person. What is contended is that the objection should have been taken to the suit itself instead of the secretary who may be one of the members of the Sanitation Committee and other members could have as well been joined to re-move any irregularity or even illegality, that the defect in the suit, if any, was removed after the name of the Municipal Committee Morsi which is admittedly a juristic person was substituted as decree-holder and that the question was barred by resjudicata and in any event the judgment-debtors were estopped from raising this objection when the executing Court and also the Collector had to the knowledge of the judgment-debtors proceeded on more occasions than one to execute the decree and had passed several orders relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of that decree. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on Subramanian Pattar v. Panjamma Kunjiamma 4 Mad. 324 and particularly on the observations at page 325 and also relied on a passage from Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, 10th Edition, at page 164 which runs thus: A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. It must take the decree as it stands. It has no power to entertain any objection as to the validity of the decree, or that it was obtained. by fraud or as to the legality or correctness of the decree, e.g., an objection that the decree sought to be executed was passed against a wrong person or that it was passed against a lunatic or a minor not properly represented, or that the Court which passed it had no jurisdiction to pass it.