( 1 ) THE appellant In C. M. A. No. 269/1977 and CMA. No. 270/ 1977 is the respondent in E A. No. 95/1976 and E. A. No. 101/1976 respectively in E. P. No. 27/1976 and he preferred the two appeals having been aggrieved with the common order passed by the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E. A. Nos. 95/1976 and 101/1976 in E. P. No. 27/1976. C. M. A. Nos. 361 and 362 of 1977 are preferred by the petitioners in E. A Nos. 95 and 101 of 1976,

( 2 ) THESE appeals were originally posted before our learned brother Madhava Reddy, J. The learned Judge felt that an important question of law as to whether a petition under order 21 Rules 99, 100 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure pending on the date of the commencement of the amended Civil Procedure Code should be enquired into and disposed of in accordance with the amended Code of Civil procedure or in accordance with the old Code of Civil Procedure in force on the date of the presentation cf that petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge observed that this question would arise for consideration in several execution matters pending in the lower courts as well as in appeals preferred against the orders passed therein and in his opinion, an authoritative decision of this Court is necessary to guide the executing Courts and that apart, the property which forms the subject-matter of these execution proceedings also is stated to be of the value of over Rs. 20,000/- and the execution proceedings related to a decree of over 20 years. The learned Judge, therefore, deems it just and necessary that these appeals should be disposed of by a Division Bench and the learned Judge submitted the records to the Chief Justice. In those circumstances, His Lordship, the Chief Justice, referred this matter to this Bench.

( 4 ) BEFORE answering the reference, we feel it necessary to narrate the brief facts leading to these appeals. One Balayya filed a suit O. S. No. 5/1/1951 against the defendants (1) Narsing Rao son of ramakrishna Rao, (2) Panduranga Rao son of Krishna Rao and (3) r. Balayya, for declaration of his title to and for recovery of possession of the land in S. No. 174 admeasuring five begas and 37 dinas. The suit was decreed on 28-11-1951. Ex. C-2 is the certified copy of the decree in O. S. No. 5/1/1951. Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 5/1/1951 was also dismissed on 7-7-1958. Balayya, the decree-holder filed execution petition E. P. No. 20/1958 and got it dismissed on 11-7-1961, as there was some obstruction caused by third parties and as the decree holder did not file the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 for the removal of obstruction. The decree-holder again filed E P. No. 16/1962 for covery of possession of the suit lands along with seven mulgies and one house situated in S. No, 174 of Panjagutta, Hyderabad District from the Judgment-debtors who are the defendants in the suit O. S. No. 5/1/1951. The decree-holder also sought for recovery of profits of Rs. 16. 000/- which lie in the account of Bazarath Sharfekhas, as the Sharfekhas were collecting rents from the tenants who were in the occupation of the lands and mulgies in respect of which, Balayya obtained a decree. As per the directions of the Executing Court, the sharfekhas remitted the amounts into the court and also deposited the rental deeds into the court and informed the tenants inthe occupation of the mulgies that they should pay the rents to the decree-holder balayya. After the amounts were remitted in the Court by the Sharfekhas, the Court directed the decree-holder Balayya to with draw the amount from the court and take possession of the rental deeds and other relevant documents from the Court in respect of the mulgies. Accordingly the decree-holder withdrew the amounts and took possession of the rental deeds":in respect of the mulgies. The court ordered for delivery of possession of the land and mulgies in favour of the decree-holder, Balayya. But Abdul Razak and his two wives who