R. B. MISRA, J. :- I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother Sinha, J. With all respects, however, I find myself unable to concur with the view taken by my learned Brother.

2. The present Special Appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench. As on one of the points involved in the case there was conflict of judicial opinion, the Division Bench referred the case to a larger Bench. This is how this appeal came up before this Bench.

3. In order to appreciate the points involved in this case a few facts would be necessary. Matadin, the father of Ram Lochan appellant, was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in dispute. One Ram Naresh obtained a money decree against Matadin from the Court of Judge, Small Causes in the year 1953. He sought to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the judgment-debtor. As under the rules the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree by attachment and sale of immoveable property, the decree-holder applied for the transfer of the decree to the Court of Munsif, Varanasi, for execution. The transferee Court ordered execution by sale of the plots in dispute and transferred