Decree passed by the Court in favour of landlord attained finality.

All these revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the District Munsif of Chidambaram in E.A. Nos. 148, 150, 152 and 154 of 1977 in O.S. Nos. 621, 622, 623 and 692 of 1968 respectively on the file of this Court.

2. The question, which is of some interest raised for consideration in the revision petitions is whether on the face of the petitions filed under section 17 , Civil Procedure Code, by the defendant, the executing Court is bound to consider whether the decrees in ejectment passed against the defendant are rendered non-executable by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act XXV of 1955 read with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969).

3. The brief facts, which require mention, are as follows: The respondent in each of the revision petitions is the owner of a certain extent of land, which Abdul Wahab Sahib, the petitioner in all the cases, claims to have taken on lease. The claim of tenancy was however not accepted by the several respondents. They, therefore, filed the suits mentioned above for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession. The petitioner's defence was that he was a cultivating tenant and was entitled to protection under Act XXV of 1955 from eviction. The trial Court sustained the case of the petitioner and dismissed the suits, but on appeal by the respondents the trial Court's judgment was reversed and the various suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs therein. There were second appeals to this Court by the petitioner (Second Appeal Nos. 696 to’ 699 of 1974). During the pendency of those appeals, the petitioner claimed that his name had been registered as a tenant by the appropriate authority under the provisions of Act X of 1969 and on that basis he filed C. M. P. Nos. 12642 to 12645 of 1976 to have the final notification under Act X of 1969 received as additional evidence, in the second appeals. Varadarajan, J., who heard the second appeals, rejected the petitions for reception of additional evidence on the ground that “no application under Order 12 , rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for receiving additional evidence in second appeal is maintainable.”

Eventually, the learned Judge concurred with the findings of the lower appellate Court and dismissed all the second appeals. The result was that the decree for ejectment passed in favour of each of the respondents by the lower appellate Court stood confirmed. In pursuance of the decree, the respondents filed execution petitions for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit properties from the petitioner herein. It was at that stage of matters, the petitioner filed E. A. Nos. 148, 150, 152 and 154 of 1977 under section 47, Civil Procedure Code.

4. By means of the abovesaid petitions, the petitioner contended before the Executing Court that by reason of his name being entered as a tenant in the Record of Tenancy Rights under Act X of 1969, the decrees passed against him in the suits have become null and in-executable and consequently the executing Court must render such a finding and dismiss all the execution petitions. The learned District Munsif has repelled the contention and held that all the issues in question raised by the petitioner have already been considered and decided by the High Court in S.A. No. 696 to 699 of 1974 and as such the. applications are barred by res judicata and there are also no merits in them. Accordingly, the learned District Munsif dismissed all the applications and it is against such an order these revision petitions have been filed.

5. Mr. Kesava Iyengar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Munsif has not only misunderstood the matters, but has also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and hence there is imperative need for the revision petitions being allowed and the applications being remitted back to the executi