Judgement

HEGDE, J.:- This is an execution appeal by special leave. In common with many other execution appeals, it has a long history. This litigation started as far back as in the year 1955.

2. The two contentions urged before us are: (1) that the decree under appeal does not include the properties concerned in this appeal and (2) having regard to the occupancy certificates issued under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act), it was not open to the decree-holder to ask for possession of some of the lands concerned in this appeal.

3. Leaving aside unnecessary details, the facts relevant for deciding the aforementioned contentions may now be stated:

4. The father of respondent No. 1 Khodaji Mansangi applied to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar under S. 4 of the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1954 (to be hereinafter referred to as Debtors Relief Act) for adjustment of his debts. To that petition he made all his creditors including Malek Alladatkhanji and the heirs of the deceased Hanifa Begum, wife of Malek Alladatkhanji parties. He sought adjustment of not only debts incurred by him but also the debts due from his family, which had been borrowed by his ancestors jointly with the ancestors of respondent No. 2 Khodaji having died during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 1, his son was impleaded as his legal representative. At about the same time respondent No. 2 Gulabsang Harisingh also made an application for the adjustment of debts incurred by him as well as the debts jointly borrowed by his ancestors along with the ancestors of Khodaji. Malek Alladatkhanji also applied for adjustment of debts due to him as well as to his deceased wife from Khodaji and respondent No. 2. All these applications were clubbed together and tried together.

5. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar who tried the aforementioned three applications as a Debt Adjustment Board (which will be hereinafter called Board ), made his award on January 3, 1959. Therein he held that no amount was due to any of the creditors. Consequently the creditors were directed to restore possession of the houses and fields mortgaged to them excepting those in respect of which occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act had been granted to the tenants. The fields in respect of which occupancy rights had been granted were specifically mentioned in the award. We shall refer to them more fully at the appropriate stage. The debtors who are respondents 1 and 2 did not appeal against that order. But appellants Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 9 as well as Malek Alladatkhanji went up in appeal against that award to the District Judge, Surendranagar. The learned District Judge allowed those appeals. He held that the application for redemption of the two houses in Kathada mortgaged by Lakhaji, was barred by limitation. In respect of certain other claims, which were the subject-matter of the appeal, he remanded the case to the Board to dispose of those claims in accordance with the directions given in his judgment. No appeal was taken against that decision. After remand a fresh award was made by the Debt Adjustment Board (which will be hereinafter to as the fresh award ). Respondent 1 and 2 went up in appeal against the fresh award made. That appeal was mainly directed against the direction of the Board regarding the debts due to Malek Alladatkhanji and his deceased wife. The said Malek Alladatkhanji as well as the heirs of his deceased wife also appealed against the fresh award. The appellate Court made some changes in that award. We shall refer to the various order made by the Board as well as appellate Court while dealing with individual items of properties that are in dispute.

6. Ten items of property enumerated in the Darkhast are in dispute in this appeal. Out of them Items 1 to 8 are fields. 9th Item is a "Vado" and the 10th Item consist of two houses situate at Kathada. We shall now t