{"id":63737,"date":"1960-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960"},"modified":"2015-12-14T07:32:32","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T02:02:32","slug":"b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","title":{"rendered":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR  272, \t\t  1961 SCR  (1) 591<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K L.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nB. V. PATANKAR AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC. G. SASTRY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/09\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  272\t\t  1961 SCR  (1) 591\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1967 SC1193\t (12)\n R\t    1980 SC 214\t (12)\n RF\t    1991 SC1094\t (4,5)\n\n\nACT:\nRent Control-Restrictions against eviction of tenants-Decree\nfor  possession of house-Delivery  given in the\t absence  of\ntenant-Executing   Court   ignoring   restrictions-Legality-\nRepugnance  Mysore  House  Rent\t and  Accommodation  Control\nOrder, 1948, ss. 9 and 16 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882\n(Act IV of 1882),Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) ss.\n47, 151.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t in execution of a decree  passed  in  their\nfavour\tfor  possession\t over a\t house\tobtained  possession\nthereof\t on  July  22,\t1951.  The  order  for\tdelivery  of\npossession was made without notice to and in the absence  of\nthe  respondent.  The respondent made an application in\t the\nExecuting  Court  under ss. 47, 144 and 151, Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  for setting aside the ex-parte order of  delivery\nand  for redelivery of possession of the house to him or  in\nthe  alternative, for an order to the appellants for  giving\nfacilities  for removing the moveables from the house.\t The\nExecuting Court upheld the contention of the appellant that\n76\n592\nthe  respondent's  application\twas  not  maintainable.\t  On\nappeal\tby  the\t respondent the High  Court  held  that\t the\nExecuting Court had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of\nthe respondent because of the provisions of the Mysore House\nRent  and  Accommodation Control Order, 1948, which  was  in\noperation on the date of eviction and under ss. 9 and 16  of\nwhich  certain restrictions were placed on the\teviction  of\ntenants.   On  appeal to this Court by\tspecial\t leave,\t the\nappellants  contended, inter alia, as they did in  the\tHigh\nCourt  also-,  that the Mysore House Rent Control  Order  of\n1948  was  repugnant to the provisions of  the\tTransfer  of\nProperty Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), which became applicable  in\nthe  State of Mysore by Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951\t(Act\nIII  of 1951), which came into force on April 1, 1951 ;\t and\ntherefore  the House Control Order could not operate on\t the\nrights\tof the parties on the day when the  Executing  Court\nmade the order for delivery of possession to the appellants,\ni.  e.,\t July 9, 1951, or when delivery was  actually  given\ni.e., on July 22, 1951.\nHeld, that the Transfer of Property Act came into force only\nwhen  it  was extended by notification dated  September\t 12,\n1951,  under s. 3 of that Act, i.e., from October  1,  1951,\nand  therefore\tthe  Mysore  House  Rent  and  Accommodation\nControl Order, 1948, was not repealed as from April 1, 1951,\nwhen the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, came into force and\nwas in force when the possession was delivered.\t It was then\nan  existing  law  which  was  saved  by  Art.\t372  of\t the\nConstitution  and remained unaffected by Art. 254,  and\t the\nquestion of repugnancy to the Transfer of Property Act\t(Act\nIV of 1882) did not arise in this case.\nM\/s.   Tilakram\t Rambaksh v. Bank of  Patiala,\tA.I.R.\t1959\nPunj. 440, considered.\nSection 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable  to\nthe  proceeding out of which this appeal has arisen  because\nthe question whether the decree was completely satisfied and\ntherefore  the\tcourt became functus officio  was  a  matter\nrelating  to  execution, satisfaction and discharge  of\t the\ndecree.\n<a href=\"\/doc\/155267\/\">Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, A, I. R.<\/a> 1956 S. C. 87 and J. Marret\nv.   Mohammad  Shirazi\tand  Sons, A.I.R.  1930\t P.  C.\t 86,\nconsidered.\nWhere  the court was not aware of the statutory\t restriction\nby which the execution of a decree was prohibited and passed\nan  ejectment  decree against a tenant the  Executing  Court\ncould not execute the decree and any possession given  under\nan ex parte order passed in execution of such a decree could\nbe set aside under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\nK.Muhammad Sikri Sahib v. Madhava Kurup, A.I.R. 1949 Mad.\n809, considered.  1\nThe contentions of the appellant based on the ground of\t res\njudicata and estoppel were without any force.  Sections 9(1)\nand  16 of the House Rent Control Order placed\trestrictions\non\n593\nthe  power of the Court to execute the decree  and  ignoring\nthem   was   not  merely  an  error  in\t the   exercise\t  of\njurisdiction.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1955.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nApril  3, 1954, of the Mysore High Court in  Regular  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 195 of 1951-52.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.A. Gopala Rao and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellants.<br \/>\nMirle N. Lakshminaranappa, P. Ram Reddy, R. Thiagarajan\t and<br \/>\nC. V. L. Narayan, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>1960.  September 8. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nKAPUR\tJ.-This\t appeal\t has  little  substance\t and   must,<br \/>\ntherefore,  be\tdismissed.  The appellants are\tthe  decree-<br \/>\nholders\t and  the  respondent is  the  judgment-debtor.\t  On<br \/>\nFebruary  3,  1941, by a registered deed the father  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants leased to the respondent the house in dispute for<br \/>\na  period of 10 years with an option of renewal for  further<br \/>\nperiods\t for as long as the respondent wanted.\t This  house<br \/>\nwas used by the respondent for his hotel.\n<\/p>\n<p>The father died on January 25, 1945.  On December 21,  1945,<br \/>\nthe appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the\tdeed<br \/>\nof  lease of February 3, 1941, executed by their father\t was<br \/>\nnot  for legal necessity or for the benefit of\tthe  family,<br \/>\nthat  the alienation was not binding on them and the  option<br \/>\nof  renewal  under the lease was void and  unenforceable  on<br \/>\naccount\t of uncertainty. The appellants further\t prayed\t for<br \/>\ndelivery  of  possession and for a decree for a sum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n2,655 as past mesne profits and future mesne profits at\t Rs.<br \/>\n250  per  mensem as from December 1, 1945.   The  respondent<br \/>\nfiled  his  written  statement on March\t 11,  1946,  and  an<br \/>\nadditional  written statement on November 26, 1946,  whereby<br \/>\nhe raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court\t by<br \/>\nreason of the Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1945.\t The<br \/>\ntrial  judge upheld the preliminary objection and  dismissed<br \/>\nthe suit.  On appeal, the High Court set aside the decree on<br \/>\nthe ground that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">594<\/span><br \/>\nnature\tand scope of the suit had been misconceived  by\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court  and that it was not based on  relationship  of<br \/>\nlandlord  and  tenant and therefore s. 8(1)  of\t the  Mysore<br \/>\nHouse  Rent Control Order was inapplicable and the case\t was<br \/>\nremanded for retrial.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  August 23, 1948, the suit was decreed.  The trial  court<br \/>\nheld that the lease was binding for the first period of\t ten<br \/>\nyears  as  from May 1, 1941, as it was\tsupported  by  legal<br \/>\nnecessity;   but  the  option  of  renewal  was\t  void\t and<br \/>\nunenforceable  for  uncertainty and therefore a\t decree\t for<br \/>\npossession  was passed to be operative on the expiry of\t ten<br \/>\nyears,\ti.e.,  May  1,\t1951.\tOn  appeal  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nconfirmed that decree on August 22, 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  July 9,&#8217;1951, the appellants took out execution  of\t the<br \/>\ndecree\tand on July 22, 195 1, possession was  delivered  to<br \/>\nthem.  The order for delivery was made without notice to and<br \/>\nin  the absence of the respondent.  The\t proceedings,  &#8220;spot<br \/>\nmahazar&#8221; that the respondent came to the spot after delivery<br \/>\nof  the\t major portion of the property in dispute  had\tbeen<br \/>\ndelivered to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  August 13, 1951, the respondent made an  application  in<br \/>\nthe  Executing Court, the District Judge, under ss. 47,\t 144<br \/>\nand 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the<br \/>\nex parte order of delivery and for redelivery of  possession<br \/>\nof  the house to him and in the alternative for an order  to<br \/>\nthe  appellants to give facilities to him  (respondent) to<br \/>\nremove\tthe various moveables and articles mentioned in\t the<br \/>\npetition.   The appellants pleaded that the application\t was<br \/>\nnot maintainable.  The District Judge, on November 14, 1951,<br \/>\nupheld\tthis contention and dismissed the  application.\t  An<br \/>\nappeal was taken to the High Court and it reversed the order<br \/>\nof the Executing Court and directed the appellants to return<br \/>\npossession  of the house in dispute to the respondent  along<br \/>\nwith  the  moveables  which were in the house  at  the\ttime<br \/>\nrespondent  was\t evicted.   The High  Court  held  that\t the<br \/>\nExecuting Court had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t because of the provisions of  Mysore  House<br \/>\nRent and Accommodation Control<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">595<\/span><br \/>\nOrder, 1948, which was in operation on the date of eviction,<br \/>\nThe  High Court having refused to give a  certificate  under<br \/>\nart.  133  the appellants obtained special leave  to  appeal<br \/>\nfrom  this  Court on January 12, 1955, and this is  how\t the<br \/>\nmatter has come to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The   question\t for-  decision\t mainly\t  turns\t  upon\t the<br \/>\napplicability  of  the\tprovisions of  the  two\t House\tRent<br \/>\nControl\t Orders\t of  1945 and 1948 and\thow  far  they\twere<br \/>\napplicable  to\tthe proceedings in the suit  and  execution.<br \/>\nThe Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1945 came into  force<br \/>\non  November  6,  1945,\t and  by  s.  8(1)  of\tthis  Act  a<br \/>\nrestriction  was imposed on the eviction of tenants and\t the<br \/>\nrelevant part of this section was:-\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 8 &#8220;(1) A tenant in possession of a house shall\t not<br \/>\nbe  evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a  decree  or<br \/>\notherwise  before or after the termination of  the  tenancy,<br \/>\nexcept in accordance with the provisions of this clause;<br \/>\n(2)A  landlord\twishing to evict a  tenant  in\tpossession<br \/>\nshall  apply  to  the Controller for  a\t direction  in\tthat<br \/>\nbehalf.\t  If  the  Controller  after  giving  the  tenant  a<br \/>\nreasonable   opportunity  of  showing  cause   against\t the<br \/>\napplication, is satisfied<br \/>\nThis Order was replaced by the Mysore Rent and Accommodation<br \/>\nControl Order of 1948 which came into force on July 1, 1948.<br \/>\nThe  relevant provisions of this Order, i. e., ss. 9 and  16<br \/>\nwhich are applicable to the present appeal are as follows:-<br \/>\nSection 9 &#8221; (1) A tenant in possession of a house shall\t not<br \/>\nbe  evicted  therefrom whether in execution of a  decree  or<br \/>\notherwise  except in accordance with the provisions of\tthis<br \/>\nclause<br \/>\n(2)A  landlord who seeks to evict a tenant  in\tpossession<br \/>\nshall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf<br \/>\nIf   the   Controller,\tafter  giving  tenant\ta   suitable<br \/>\nopportunity  of showing cause against such application-,  is<br \/>\nsatisfied:-\n<\/p>\n<p>this  Order shall Prevent<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">596<\/span><br \/>\na  landlord  from  filing a suit for eviction  of  a  tenant<br \/>\nbefore a competent civil court, provided that no decree\t for<br \/>\neviction  of  a\t tenant, passed by a civil  court  shall  be<br \/>\nexecuted  unless  a certificate to that effect\tis  obtained<br \/>\nfrom the Controller &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was argued on behalf of the appellants before  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  and  that argument was repeated before  us  that\t the<br \/>\nMysore House Rent Control Order of 1948 was repugnant to the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of  1882)<br \/>\nwhich was brought into force in the State of Mysore by\tPart<br \/>\nB  States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act III of 1951).  This Act\t was<br \/>\nenacted\t on February 22, 1951, and came into force on  April<br \/>\n1,  1951,  which  was  termed the  appointed  day.   It\t was<br \/>\ncontended  therefore that the House Control Order could\t not<br \/>\noperate\t on the rights of the parties on the day  when\tthe<br \/>\nExecuting  Court made the. order for delivery of  possession<br \/>\nto the appellants, i.e., July 9, 1951, or when the  delivery<br \/>\nwas  actually  given, i.e., on July 22, 1951.  To  test\t the<br \/>\nforce  of  this\t argument it is\t necessary  to\texamine\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of Part B States (Laws) Act and how and when as a<br \/>\nconsequence  of\t it  the Transfer  of  Property\t Act  became<br \/>\neffective  and operative in the State of Mysore.  Section  3<br \/>\nof  that  Act  deals with the  extension  and  amendment  of<br \/>\ncertain\t Acts and Ordinances.  The Acts and  the  Ordinances<br \/>\nspecified in the Schedule were amended and became applicable<br \/>\nas specified and as a consequence the fourth paragraph of s.<br \/>\n1  for\tthe words &#8221; Bombay&#8217; Punjab or Delhi &#8220;, the  words  &#8221;<br \/>\nthat  the  said States &#8221; were  substituted.   Therefore\t the<br \/>\neffect\tof the Part B States (Laws) Act merely was that\t qua<br \/>\nthe Transfer of Property Act, the State of Mysore was placed<br \/>\non  the\t same  footing as the States of\t Bombay,  Punjab  or<br \/>\nDelhi.\tIt was by virtue of a Notification No. 2676-Cts. 46-<br \/>\n51-5 dated September 12, 1951, that the Transfer of Property<br \/>\nAct  was extended to the State of Mysore as from October  1,<br \/>\n1951.  Consequently the laws of the State applying to leases<br \/>\nwhich  would include the Mysore House Rent Control Order  of<br \/>\n1948  continued to be in force and applicable to cases\tthat<br \/>\nwere pending till it was repealed by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">597<\/span><br \/>\nMysore\t Rent  Control\tAct  of\t 1951  which  received\t the<br \/>\nPresident&#8217;s  assent  on\t August\t 16,  1951.   The  argument,<br \/>\ntherefore,  that  as  from April 1, 1951,  as  a  result  of<br \/>\nrepugnancy  the\t House\tRent Control  Order  of\t 1948  stood<br \/>\nrepealed   must\t be  repelled  as  unsound  and\t cannot\t  be<br \/>\nsustained, because it was an existing law which was saved by<br \/>\nart. 372 of the Constitution and remained unaffected by art.\n<\/p>\n<p>254.   The Punjab High Court in M\/s.  Tilakram\tRambaksh  v.<br \/>\nBank  of Patiala (1) discussing the effect of Part B  States<br \/>\n(Laws)\tAct on the application of the Transfer\tof  Property<br \/>\nAct to PEPSU said:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8221; All that Central Act III of 1951 has  done<br \/>\n\t      is  to make it possible for Part B  States  to<br \/>\n\t      extend  the  Act to any part of  territory  by<br \/>\n\t      notification.   Actually,\t however,  this\t wag<br \/>\n\t      never done by PEPSU or Punjab and the Transfer<br \/>\n\t      of Property Act is not as such in force there.<br \/>\n\t      It  is  unnecessary in  the  circumstances  to<br \/>\n\t      examine the argument further &#8220;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Although  the question of repugnancy was raised in the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  at  the time of the hearing of the appeal,  the\ttrue<br \/>\neffect\tof  s.\t3 of the Part B States (Laws)  Act  was\t not<br \/>\nbrought\t to  the notice of the learned Judges  nor  was\t the<br \/>\nNotification placed before them, but it was discussed by the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  in its order refusing  certificate\t under\tart.<br \/>\n133(1)\tof the Constitution.  The argument  of\trepugnancy,<br \/>\ntherefore, is wholly inefficacious in this appeal.<br \/>\nThe inapplicability of s. 47 to the proceedings out of which<br \/>\nthe  appeal has arisen was also raised before us,  but\tthat<br \/>\ncontention  is\tequally unsubstantial because  the  question<br \/>\nwhether\t the decree was completely satisfied  and  therefore<br \/>\nthe  court  became functus officio is a matter\trelating  to<br \/>\nexecution, satisfaction and discharge of the decree.  It was<br \/>\nheld by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/155267\/\">Ramanna v. Nallaparaju<\/a> (2) that:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8221;\t When  a sale in execution of  a  decree  is<br \/>\n\t      impugned\t on  the  ground  that\tit  is\t not<br \/>\n\t      warranted by the terms thereof, that  question<br \/>\n\t      could  be\t agitated, when\t it  arises  between<br \/>\n\t      parties to the decree, only by an\t application<br \/>\n\t      under s. 47, and not in a separate suit &#8220;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(1) A.I.R. 1959-Pb. 440, 447.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) A.I.R. 1956 $.C. 87, 91.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">598<\/span><\/p>\n<p>See also J. Marret v. Mohammad Shirazi &amp; Sons (1) where\t the<br \/>\nfacts  were  that an order was made by the  Executing  Court<br \/>\ndirecting contrary to the terms of the decree the payment of<br \/>\na certain fund to the decree-holder.  The Madras High  Court<br \/>\nin  K. Mohammad Sikri Sahib v. Madhava Kurup (2)  held\tthat<br \/>\nwhere the Executing Court was not aware of the amendment  of<br \/>\nthe Rent Restriction Act by which the execution of a  decree<br \/>\nwas  prohibited\t and  passed an ejectment  order  against  a<br \/>\ntenant, the Executing Court could not execute the decree and<br \/>\nany  possession\t given\tunder an ex parte  order  passed  in<br \/>\nexecution of such a decree, could be set aside under s.\t 151<br \/>\nof the Code of Civil Procedure.\t The prohibition is  equally<br \/>\npuissant  in  the present case and s. 47 read  with  s.\t 151<br \/>\nwould\tbe  equally  effective\tto  sustain  the  order\t  of<br \/>\nredelivery made in favour of the respondent.<br \/>\nThe applicability of res judicata and the defenses of waiver<br \/>\nand  estoppel  were  also raised  by  the  appellants.\t The<br \/>\ncontention  of res judicata was based on the plea  taken  by<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t in his written statement, dated  March\t 11,<br \/>\n1946,  where  he  pleaded  that\t the  civil  court  had\t  no<br \/>\njurisdiction  to  order eviction because of the\t House\tRent<br \/>\nControl\t Order, 1945, to which the reply of  the  appellants<br \/>\nwas  that  considering\tthe  nature  of\t the  suit  and\t the<br \/>\nconsequential  remedy  that they were seeking, the  plea  of<br \/>\njurisdiction  of the court was not open to  the\t respondent.<br \/>\nThereupon the trial court raised a new &#8216;issue &#8221; whether this<br \/>\ncourt has jurisdiction to try the suit, in view of the House<br \/>\nRent   Control\tOrder  &#8221;  which\t was  decided  against\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  and\t a decree in favour of\tthe  appellants\t was<br \/>\npassed on August 23,1945.  This judgment formed the basis of<br \/>\nthe argument before us that the plea of in-executability  of<br \/>\nthe decree could not be raised because it was barred on\t the<br \/>\nprinciple of res judicata.  The plea of res judicata is\t not<br \/>\navailable to the appellants as the prohibition on account of<br \/>\nthe House Rent Control Order was not against the passing  of<br \/>\nthe  decree  but  against its execution\t and  therefore\t the<br \/>\nobjection to the executability could only be taken<br \/>\n(1) A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 86,<br \/>\n(2) A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 809.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    599<\/span><\/p>\n<p>at  the\t time of the execution of the decree  which  in\t the<br \/>\ninstant\t case  could  not  be done  because  the  order\t for<br \/>\ndelivery by the Executing Court was passed without notice to<br \/>\nthe  respondent.  We must, therefore, repel  the  contention<br \/>\nbased on the ground of res judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p>The argument of waiver and estoppel is also devoid of force.<br \/>\nThis  plea  was\t based on a letter  which  the\trespondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nlawyer\tsent  in  reply to the\trespondent  asking  to\tmake<br \/>\narrangements  to  put  the appellants  in  possession.\t The<br \/>\nformer\t replied  thereto  that\t his  client&#8217;\twas   making<br \/>\narrangements  and as soon as he could do go, he\t would\thand<br \/>\nover  possession to the appellants.  This is  slender  basis<br \/>\nfor  the sustainability of the plea of waiver and  estoppel.<br \/>\nThere is no conduct on the part of the respondent which\t has<br \/>\ninduced\t the appellants to change their position or  has  in<br \/>\nany  way  affected  their  rights  and\tthe  plea  of\tnon-<br \/>\nexecutability  which has been taken is based on statute\t and<br \/>\nagainst\t statute there cannot be an estoppel.\tThis  ground<br \/>\ntaken  by  the\tappellants is equally unsound  and  must  be<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  contention raised that ignoring ss. 9(1) and 16 of\t the<br \/>\n1948  House Rent Control Order is no more than an  error  in<br \/>\nthe  exercise  of jurisdiction does not appear to  be  sound<br \/>\nbecause those sections are a fetter on the executability  of<br \/>\nthe  decree and not merely an error in the exercise  of\t the<br \/>\njurisdiction.\t In  the  present  case\t the  two   sections<br \/>\nmentioned above were a restriction on the power of the court<br \/>\nto execute the decree and therefore this argument must\talso<br \/>\nbe, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">77<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">600<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 272, 1961 SCR (1) 591 Author: K L. Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: B. V. PATANKAR AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: C. G. SASTRY DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2376,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\",\"name\":\"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960","datePublished":"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960"},"wordCount":2376,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960","name":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T02:02:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-patankar-and-others-vs-c-g-sastry-on-8-september-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. V. Patankar And Others vs C. G. Sastry on 8 September, 1960"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}