GIRWAR AND OTHERS Vs. SARUPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the judgment-debtor arises out of execution proceedings.

(2.) Kapuri mortgaged five agricultural plots with the respondent Sarupa some time before 1950. Sarupa continued as a mortgagee in possession of these plots, but upon interference with his possession by the appellants, Girwar and others, he instituted suit No. 461 of 1950 on Nov. 7, 1950 for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession. The suit was decreed on Feb. 16, 1952, and an appeal against that decree was disputed on March 3, 1953. It seems that two or three months after the decree was passed for permanent in-junction, the appellant dispossessed the respondent. It appears from the judgment under appeal that this act of dispossession took place in 1358F but from the statement of counsel for Sarupa recorded by the trial court it is apparent that Sarupa was dispossessed in April or May 1952. Thereafter Sarupa filed suit No. 478 of 1952 for possession of the agricultural plots, but the suit was dismissed on Sept. 30, 1953. Sarupa then made an application under Order 21, R. 32, C, P. C. on May 24, 1957 stating that the appellant had disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction by interfering with his possession and forcibly ejecting him, and therefore, the decree should be enforced by attachment of their property and by committing them to civil prison. It is this application which has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) The appellants preferred an objection to the application contending that they had been in possession for more than three years and the application was barred by limitation. It was also urged that as from July 1, 1952, when the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had been brought into force, Sarupa as mortgagee had no rights left in the agricultural plots, the mortgagor being entitled to possession.