Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The background facts may be briefly noted.

2. The respondent as the plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant (appellant herein) from the land and building under land Settlement Certificate (LSC) No. 110 of 1976. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant had sold his land and building covered by LSC No. 110 of 1976 measuring about 0.12 bigha located at Ramhlun South, Aizawl to the plaintiff on 23.7.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Defendant submitted before the Revenue authorities a form prescribed by the Revenue Department for mutation and transfer of ownership of land. Accordingly, the Revenue authorities mutated the said land in favour of the plaintiff on 24.7.2007. A Deed of Undertaking and Sale was also executed by the defendant on 24.7.2007. It was, however, stated therein that the plaintiff would be allowed to re-transfer the ownership of the land to the defendant on payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per month by the defendant to the plaintiff within a period of 5 months.

3. Defendant did not pay Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith the interest to the plaintiff within the stipulated period of 5 (five) months. Defendant also failed to vacate the land and building.

4. Plaintiff served notice on the defendant on 21.2.2008 to vacate the suit premises within 30 (thirty) days. When the defendant failed to vacate the land and building, plaintiff served another notice on the defendant on 20.6.2008, which also went unresponded.

5. Defendant failed to pay rent for occupying the building. Claiming that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. 110 of 1976 and that he has the right to occupy and possess the said land and building, plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 1/2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl and sought for eviction of the defendant from the suit land and building.

6. Though served, defendant did not contest the suit.

7. Learned Trial Court framed the following 2 (two) issues for determination -

1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? and

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? If so, to what extent?

8. Plaintiff examined 4 (four) witnesses, including herself and exhibited 6 (six) documents.

9. Learned Trial Court vide the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2010 decreed Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2009 by holding the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit land and building. Defendant was directed to vacate the suit land and building and to handover vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff within 60 (sixty) days.

10. Thereafter, plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 12 of 2011 for execution of the decree dated 21.12.2010 passed in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2009. In the execution case, learned Sr. Civil Judge-2, Aizawl passed an order on 7.7.2011 directing the police to handover clear vacant pos session of the suit land and property to the decree holder. The Officer-in-Charge, Bawngkawn Police Station was further directed to arrest the judgment debtor if there was any obstruction in handing over possession to the decree holder. Learned counsel for the decree holder was also directed to keep vigil and to submit compliance report. Further order was passed by the executing Court on 29.7.2011 to remove moveable properties which were inside the suit building.

11. The appellant entered appearance in the execution proceeding and filed written objection. Appellant contended that there was no sale of the suit land and property. Therefore, the judgment delivered in the eviction suit was void. Appellant had also deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- before the executing Court as the amount due to the decree-holder. Objection was filed by the decree-holder declining to accept the said amount.

12. Ultimately, the executing Court passed order dated 30.8.2011 dire