The vesting of mortgaged properties in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to continue the execution proceeding and confirm the sale that had already taken place.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been brought on behalf of two of the judgment-debtors from the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, dated 11-8-1952, by which he dismissed their objection to the execution ot : the decree passed against them and others by sale of their portion of the mortgaged properties only.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as Follows, Ono Bindabasini Prasad executed in favour of Apurba Krishna Mitra, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, six mortgage-bonds hypothecating his proprietary shares in different tauzis as detailed below :

(1) dated 11-5-35 for Rs. 17,000 in respect of tauzis Nos. 20805 and 9710;

(2) dated 27-5-34 for Rs. 33,000 in respect of tauzis Nos. 12595, 12597, 7462, 2086 and 10837;

(3) dated 9-2-37 for Rs. 25,000 in respect of tauzis Nos. 1216, 20690 and 915;

(4) dated 18-8-37 for Rs. 15,000 in respect of tauzis Nos. 12595, 12597, 1193. 915, 1216, 317, 20776, 2086, 20805, 9710 and 10837;

(5) dated 20-2-38 for Rs. 15,000 in respect of tauzis Nos. 915, 12597, 12595, 1193, 1216, 317, 20776, 2086, 20806, 9710, 10837, 7462 and 643; and

(6) dated 16-3-39 for Rs. 18,600 in respect of tauzis Nos. 915, 12595. 12597, 1193, 1216, 317, 20776, 2086, 20805, 9710, 10837 and 7462.

On 21-7-1941, the mortgagees filed a joint mortgage suit in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, for the enforcement of the aforesaid mortgages claiming in all Rs. 2,01,973. In due course a joint decree was passed on 10-2-1944, for Rs. 2,57,283/4/9. It appears that the appellants had obtained a money decree against the mortgagor, Bindabasini Prasad.

In execution of that decree in Money Execution Case No. 199 of 1938 they attached and put to sale his 8 annas 13 gandas share in tauzi No, 915 and themselves purchased the same at the auction on 7-4-1941. Subsequently, they obtained sale certificate and delivery of possession of the purchased milkiat interest through Court. In the meantime, Bindabasini Prasad, the mortgagor, created a trust of all his properties in favour of the Kayastha Pathsala, Allahabau, by two registered instruments dated 10-11-1941 and 14-3-1942. The respondents levied execution in respect o£ the mortgage decree in Mortgage Execution Case No. 64 of 1946 against the Kayastha Pathsala, the successor-in-interest of Bindabasini Prasad and the appellants. The former effected a compromise with the mortgagees decree-holders whereby all the properties of the late Bindahasini Prasad which were subject to the aforesaid six mortgages, except the S annas and 13 gandas share in village Bihpur, bauzi No. 915, were released in favour of the Kayastha Pathsala in consideration of the payment of Rs. 1,50,000 out of the mortgage decree to the respondents. The Kayastha Pathsala & the respondents further stipulated that the sum of Rs. 17,950 would be realised by the respondents not from the Kayastha Putlisala but from the appellants by sale of the remaining mortgaged property, namely, 8 annas 13 gandas share in tauzi No. 915 which the appellants had purchased at the auction sale.

It will appear from the above that this share was subject to the last four out of the six mortgages mentioned above. Thereafter the respondents levied another execution for the balance of the mortgage debt against the appellants by sale of the 8 annas odd share in tauzi No. 915. The appellants objected to the sale of this tauzi on tho ground that the compromise arrived at between the Kayastlia Pathsala and the decree-holders respondents was not binding upon them, as they were not parties to the said compromise and that in view of their purchase of the said tauzi at auction held in execution of their money decree,, in equity and in fairness the executing Court should proceed in the first instance against tbe remainder of the mortgaged properties and should proceed against the share purchased by them only when the sale proceeds of these mortgaged properties proved insufficient