Abdur Rahman, J.

1. The question that we have been. invited to decide in these revisions is one of jurisdiction. These revisions came up for decision once before and Pandrang Row, J., and one of us then took the view following another case decided by the same Bench (for which see Jami Venkatappudu v. Kannapalii Ramamurthi AIR1940Mad131 that the Subordinate Judges Court at Berhampore would continue to have, even after the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936, had come into force, jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the applications made by the judgment-debtor under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938). This conclusion was arrived at as the proceedings on these applications were then regarded, on account of the words " or enter satisfaction " contained in Section 19 of that Act, to relate to " discharge or satisfaction of the decree" used in Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. In that view the revision petitions were accepted on the 12th August, 1940 and the petitions were remanded to the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore for disposal according to law.

2. It was discovered by the petitioners shortly after, that one of the decree-holders (respondent) had died a few days before the heading of the revisions in this Court and the judgment delivered on the 12th August, 1940, would not be effective at least against his legal representatives. Two applications (C.M. Ps. Nos. 980 and 983 of 1941) were therefore made to this Court to bring them on the record and to rehear the revisions. These applications were granted by us on the 19th August, 1942. Since in view of a Full Bench decision to which we would refer subsequently, we were not quite sure as to what the fate of these revisions would now be, we ordered, in spite of an objection on behalf of the petitioner, that they should be heard de novo and not confined to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent alone. This was done with the object of avoiding a conflict in case we ultimately arrived at a conclusion different from what had been arrived at in August, 1940.

3. The facts which gave rise to these revisions may be now stated. A preliminary decree on the basis of a mortgage deed dated the 17th February, 1916, was passed in O.S. No. 32 of 1924 by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore on the nth February, 1925. This was made final on the 7th April, 1926. An execution application for the sale of the property was filed in 1929. It was pending when the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936, was passed by His Majesty in Council. Under this Order, Orissa which was formerly a part of the Province of Bihar and Orissa was formed into a separate Province and was placed within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. A portion of the Ganjam District which was formerly in Madras Presidency was transferred to and became a part of Orissa. The Subordinate Judges Court at Berhampore was in the area so transferred. The remaining portion of Ganjam District which remained in the Madras Presidency was made a part of the Vizagapatam District. It may be borne in mind that all the properties covered by the final decree passed on the 7th April, 1926, were situated within the area that was retained in the Madras Presidency and fell within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judges Court at Chicacole which was a part of the Vizagapatam District. The Order in Council came into operation on the 1st April, 1936, and this has been referred to in it as " the appointed day " when the various changes in jurisdiction had come into effect.

4. The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. came into force in March, 1938. A petition (E.A. No. 24 of 1938) was filed by the fifth defendant, a legal representative of the deceased (who had acquired rights in the property covered by the decree passed? in O.S. No. 32 of 1924 in or about 1931 and had been impleaded for that reason as a party to the execution proceedings on the 8th December, 1931), to th