- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant against whom the respondents suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court, the first appellate court having confirmed the same in appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record as well. It is an admitted fact that the respondent brought a suit for recovery of possession over this very land in dispute previously which was decreed, the decree being upheld by the Board as well. In execution of that decree, as alleged by the respondent, possession was transferred to him on 26-6-51. Thereafter the appellant dispossessed him again and hence this suit. The appellant's connection before us is that no possession was transferred actually in execution of the earlier decree as alleged by the respondent and that the possession remained with him all through the period. This plea has rightly been rejected by both the lower courts. The evidence of the Field Inspector couped with the other oral evidence makes it perfectly clear that possession was transferred to the respondent in execution of the earlier decree on 26-6-51. It is also significant to observe that prior to the institution of this suit the respondent applied for a fresh execution of the earlier decree as he had been dispossessed by the appellant The appellant while resisting that execution himself stated that possession had been transferred to the respondent by the Field Inspector. In view of this clear admission on his behalf, he cannot be allowed now to plead that possession remained with him. It has been further found as a fact by the lower courts that the appellant wrongfully dispossessed the respondent. The decrees of the lower court, therefore, are perfectly correct and call for no interference. Before leaving the case, we would like to observe that the trial court appears to have been under the impression that the decree can be executed only between 1st day of April and 30th day of June, as laid down in sec. 92 (1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945. Sub sec. (2) of this section however makes it perfectly clear that the fixation of time referred to above has no reference to decrees passed under sec. 90 of the Act, the present decree being one under the same. While rejecting this appeal, we would, therefore, order that the possession shall be transferred to the respondent immediately along with the crops that may be standing over it. .;