A.M. Sapre, J. - (1.) Heard on the question of grant of stay applied by the appellant s ( writ petitioners).
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of any stay or/and ad-interim writ in favour of appellants in relation to the subject matter of properties during pendency of the appeal for more than one reason.
(3.) In the first place, the revenue suit out of which this writ appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) before the revenue court only for seeking a declaration of their share in the suit properties and the same having been granted to the plaintiff (respondents), there is nothing for this Court to stay in such matter. In other words, since the impugned decree, which is now subject matter of this litigation, is only a declaratory decree passed in favour of the plaintiff s and hence there is no question of staying such declaratory decree. It being a settled principal of law that declaratory decrees are not executable but they are in the nature of declaration only which declare the rights of the parties in the suit property, there arise no question of its execution against the defendants (appellants/writ petitioners). In the light of this settled principal of law, there is no case for grant of any stay of execution of such declaratory decree.;