Renupada Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The only question of law raised in this appeal is whether Section 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the execution of the rent decree which the decree-holders respondents have obtained against the appellants and some other persons, by attachment and sale of the movable properties of the appellants and not of the defaulting tenure.
(2.) The facts of the case are not disputed and they may be briefly stated thus. The respondents obtained a rent decree, on the 5th July, 1954 against the appellants and some other persons for a sum of Rs. 3,295-7-9 pies, inclusive of claim and costs. This decree was obtained on account of arrears of rent in respect of a tenure, which the appellants and their co-sharers held under the decree-holders respondents. The decree was put to execution on the 23rd August, 1954. Upon an application made by the judgment-debtors, on the 12th November, 1954, for stay of proceedings, the execution proceedings were stayed under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. This stay order was vacated on the 25th June, 1955. In the meantime the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953 had come into full operation with the result that the defaulting tenure vested in the State on the 15th April, 1955. Thereafter the decree-holder made a prayer for being permitted to proceed against the movable properties of the judgment-debtors. This prayer was allowed, and the decree-holders were permitted to proceed against the movable properties of the appellants and other judgment-debtors.
(3.) Thereafter thren separate objections were filed by different sets of judgment-debtors--the tenor of which was practically the same, namely, that the term of the tenure held by the judgment-debtors had not expired, but the tenure had simply been converted into condensation money by reason of its vesting in the State, and so the decree-holders could realise their decretal dues only from out of the compensation money payable by the State and not by attachment and sale of other properties of the juddment-debtors. It was contended that Section 168A of the Bengal Tenancv Act would stand in the way of the decree-holders. All these objections were overruled by the two Courts below, and the two appellants of this appeal who had filed miscellaneous case No. 224 of 1955 in the executing Court have come up to this Court in Second Appeal.;