1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants and the appeal arises out of an application filed by them for redelivery of the properties delivered to the decree holder-auction purchaser in execution of the decree.

2. The decree was for arrears of rent. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder purchased in court auction the leasehold interest of defendants 1 to 4 in the plaint items. The court sale was 25 31957. The

Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957 (Ordinance I of 1957) came into force on 114-1957. Ordinance I of 1957 was replaced by the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act I of 1957) which came into force on 315 1957. S.4 of the Act was to the following effect:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a person from his holding or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of, or for damages for use and occupation of, the holding accrued due before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957, shall lie in any Court and all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings pending in the Courts at such commencement for such eviction or recovery of arrears of such rent or damages shall be stayed:

Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the Court from granting any relief to which the lessor is entitled other than eviction from the holding."

3. The defendants filed E. A. 769 of 1957 praying that in view of S.4 of Act I of 1957, the confirmation of the court sale should be stayed. E. A. 769 of 1957 was dismissed by the execution court by the order dated 22 71957, as it was of the view that the court sale having taken place, there was no proceeding for recovery of arrears of rent pending execution and S.4 of Act I of 1957 was no bar to the confirmation of the court sale. The court sale was therefore confirmed on 23 71957 and the properties purchased in auction were delivered to the auction purchaser on 29 91957. Defendants 1 to 4 filed an application for re-delivery of the properties delivered to the auction purchaser on the ground that the confirmation of court sals and the subsequent delivery proceedings being in violation of S.4 of Act I of 1957 are without jurisdiction and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to have their possession restored. Both the courts below rejected the petition for redelivery on the grounds that S.4 of Act I of 1957 was not a bar to the confirmation of a court sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent which took place prior to the date of the Ordinance and the Act and the order passed on E. A. 769 of 1957 operated as a bar to the petition for redelivery filed by defendants 1 to 4.

4. The correctness of both these grounds was challenged before us by the learned advocate appearing for defendants 1 to 4. Since we are of the view that the order dated 22 71957 of the execution court dismissing E. A. 769 of 1957 is a bar to the application for redelivery filed by the defendants, we do not think it necessary to consider the question whether confirmation of a court sale which took place in execution of a decree for arrears of rent prior to Act I of 1957 is a proceeding for recovery of arrears of rent in execution contemplated by S.4 of Act I of 1957.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order dismissing E. A. 769 of 1957 could not operate as a bar to the petition for redelivery of the properties because the confirmation of the court sale in utter disregard of the statutory prohibition under S.4 of Act I of 1957 is void as the court was deprived of its jurisdiction to pass the order of confirmation and therefore it is a nullity. In support of his contention the learned advocate relied on S.44 of the Evidence Act which reads:

"Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, orde