JUDGMENT

Henderson, J. - These appeals are by the decree-holder and raise a question whether certain sales held in execution of rent decrees were nullities. There is no dispute about the facts. The sales were held after an application in connection with the decretal dues had been filed before a Debt Settlement Board. Two days later a notice came under sec. 34 of the Act. Therefore it could obviously be not argued that the provisions of that section had been defied. The Respondent therefore fell hack upon sec. 35 which prohibited execution.

2. In view of the provisions of Art. 166 of the Indian Limitation Act the proper order for the Munsif to make was a declaration to the effect that the interest of the applicants was not affected by the sale. As this might merely create future trouble, this point was not pressed.

3. The sales were clearly held in defiance of sec. 35 of the Act and I entirely agree with the view taken in the Courts below that a sale held in defiance of the provisions of the Act is a nullity.

4. In support of the appeal Mr. Guha contended that, inasmuch as the notice had not arrived, the sales are saved. This argument is supported by the decision of Edgley, J., in the c