Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) The only point in this appeal is whether the decree is executable.
(2.) The plaintiff judgment-debtor filed the Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 231 of 1956, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the disputed tank or otherwise interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. This suit was decreed on a solenama entered into by and between the plaintiff and the contesting defendant No. 1. The material provisions of the solenama broadly are as follows : "(a) The plaintiff admits the disputed tank to be the khas property of defendant No. 1. (b) The defendant No. 1 grants lease of the disputed tank to the plaintiff for a period of seven years at an annual rent of Rs. 750/-. (c) On the expiration of Chaitra, 1369 B. S. the plaintiff will vacate the disputed tank and make over peaceful possession thereof to the defendant No. 1 and in default the defendant No. 1 will be entitled to recovery of possession of the said tank in execution of the decree. (d) If the defendant No. 1 fails to use the tank for his own exclusive business purpose (rearing fish spawns), then the plaintiff will be entitled to further lease for such terms and conditions as may be agreed." It appears that the suit was decreed on the aforesaid solenama against the defendant No. 1 and the solenama was made a part of the decree. The decree was subsequently registered.
(3.) The defendant No. 1 transferred his interest in the suit property to the appellant before us who put the said decree in execution in Title Execution Case No. 60 of 1963. The judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1 filed an objection under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the decree was not executable giving rise to Misc. Case No. 57 of 1964. The learned Munsif overruled the objection against the execution of the decree and dismissed the Misc. Case. On appeal the learned Appellate Court allowed the objection and dismissed the execution case. The present appeal is against this decision.;