The judgment establishes the principle that leasehold rights of lessees under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1898 and 1920 were exempt from attachment and sale in execution of a decree.

J Sen, J—This appeal arises out of an execution case. The appellant Waman Nanaji Patil obtained a decree on 19-3-1934 in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1932 against the respondent Ramchandra 'alias' Chandrabhan son of Marotrao Patil for Rs. 14,954-6-0 and Rs. 1,108/- as costs. The decree-holder made an application on 11-2-1942 for execution of the decree for Rs. 14,953-12-0 and asked that the leasehold rights of the judgment-debtor under the lease dated 25-8-1915 be attached and sold.

2. Subsequent to the filing of the execution application, the decree-holder filed a list of the fields which the judgment-debtor had obtained on lease in perpetuity under the lease dated 25-8-1915 executed by Gulabrao Narayanrao Patil in his favour. Afterwards, the decree-holder filed a certified copy of the lease on 6-3-1942. On that date the executing Court directed the issue of a prohibitory order under Order XXI, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging his leasehold rights in any way. The prohibitory order was served on the judgment-debtor on 7-5-1942.

3. On the objection (Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 1942) made by Bhasker on 18-9-1942 under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, the following fields covered by the lease were released from attachment on 20-2-1943.

No.

Area

Rent

Village

162/1

31.26

Rs. 97-8-0

Rohna

11

17.93

Rs. 24-12-0

Shirpur

18

10 65

Rs. 17-0-0

Ambapur

4. The decree-holder thereupon made an application on 20-2-1943 stating that the judgment-debtor had only 1/4th share in the following fields covered by the lease.

No.

Area

Rent

Village

Tahsil

152

30.35

Rs. 134-12-0

Rohna

Arvi

153

3.07

Rs. 11-12-0

,,

,,

155

9

Rs. 19-4-0

,,

,,

14

9.84

Rs. 15-0-0

Shirpur

,,

8

23.64

Rs. 17-0-0

Ambpur

,,

and asked that his 1/4th share in those fields be attached and sold and that the decree-holder be permitted to amend his execution application and the list filed by him. He was permitted to do so. Thereupon he made the necessary amendment in his list.

5. As the attachment of the fields mentioned in paragraph 4 of his order was continued by the executing Court the judgment-debtor filed an objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, on 20-2-1943. He claimed that he was the full owner of the said fields and stated that they were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against him. The objection was allowed by the executing Court on 22-9-1943 and the fields were released from attachment. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the decree-holder.

6. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the leasehold rights of the judgment-debtor in the fields mentioned in paragraph 4 of this order were liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree. The question is one of first impression and not covered by any direct authority.

7. Ramrao and Gulabrao, proprietors' of 'mauzas' Rohna, Sirpur, and Ambapur, tahsil Arvi, district Wardha, gave a lease of their 'sir' fields in perpetuity to Ramchandra and Tukaram sons of Janmaji and Marotirao and Bithu under a registered 'patta', dated 25-8-1915, for Rs. 7,000. The annual rent payable under the lease was Rs. 349-12-0. The 'sir' fields let out to the lessees are given in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order. The lessors are dead. Bhaskar is the son of the lessor Gulabrao. Reference has already been made to Bhasker in an earlier part of the order. Nilkanth is the son of the other lessor Ramrao. The judgment-debtor is the son of Marotirao, one of the lessees.

8. The lease granted on 25-8-1915 was valid according to the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1898, which was in force at the date of the lease. The lessees became ordinary tenants in perpetuity of 'sir' fields and were not liable to ejectment at the instance of their landlord so long as they paid rent of the land leased to them. The ordinary tenancy rights acquired by them in the 'sir' fields were exempt from Court sales. Sub-section (2) of Sec