1. These revision petitions are before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of which one of us was a member. 1952 KLT 660 was a previous decision of a Division Bench relating to the question involved in these revisions. The reference to the Full Bench was not because any doubt was felt on the correctness of the previous decision but for the purpose of giving a quietus to the whole situation by an authoritative decision of a Full Bench. 1952 KLT 660 followed a decision of the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in AIR 1952 Orissa 120 delivered by Jaganatha Das, C.J., as he then was. Every prior relevant ruling was referred to therein and it was felt to be superogatory in 1952 KLT to cover the ground afresh. After hearing learned counsel at length we are for affirming the view taken in 1952 KLT 660.

2. Mr. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that 1952 KLT 660 does not cover the question that arises in these cases. The facts in C.R.P. 290 of 1954 are: There was a decree for redemption of a possessory mortgage. The decree-holder applied for possession and 23.6.1954 was fixed as the date for effecting delivery. The previous