\ at. Kottappurathu house,. £om UTZ1P1ppil, Ul1akkov1l±± Cherry, @uilon Pakuth1. , .· , _. · •.::;·; - ... ,f '"; ,. By Advocate Sri.T.K.Na.rayana Pillai This_~ppeal suit having been heard on 16-2-1951, the on the same day delivered the following:-,, ' O.S.253 of 1124, (Execution) of ,the .Quilon District Court Appellant - defena,a,nt:- Said Mohammed Rowther,. Navak_kannu Rother residing near In the High Court of Travancore-Cochin . , Before Their Lordships The· Hon' ble I¼r.Justice K.S. Govinda Pillai and The Hon'ble lir.Just&ice K..Gana@hara Menon A.S.2 of1951 ' ~u.ravanpalam, Asramathueig.er.ry f'.ro1? Madappalli Purayidom_, Vada- kkun;ibhag~Cher.ry,.Quilon Pakuthi. t 4 st District Judge at that' station. Vfuen the pr~ies came up for sale, the judgment-debtor applied for stay of execution as he _By Advocate Si.T.J;C.• .Toseph · Res-oondent - Decree-holder;- a.o ? I Ayyappan Sanku' Panickar residing «" f" • .Judgment • ••.i. +- · ' ,.. ·· /fh~· .;udgment-debtor is the appellant. He had j or J:950 before the District Court,Quilon under sec.16 of the Acts. That is now p_ending in the Second Jucl.ge' s .Cou:rt .A Re appointed by that court~s now in possession of all his proper- ties. The decree· in question is pendin_g execution before the V V ; obtaining the sanction of the Gecond Judge to·p.roceed against the decree-agai:q.s.tthe appellant he should have directed for "" :_J had already filed the D.R.Act petiti011~ till the disposal of ~ .~.J . . . that petition or for four months to find out money to discha.rge- appealed agains. - . . . .. - - ·,Vhen the. foe~ that· the properties in ques;ion were in th~ ( posE)ession of a Rece:i..Jle.r appointed by the Second Judge wals · i brought· to tht! notice of the District Jp_dge, who was executing 4 ?i - ties. The petition of .the· ,judgment-debtor should have been the properties. Till that is done he is not to sell the proper- ' : .;•. / 2. I I allowed· as indicated above. In this appeal we direct the execution court to proceed against the properties only after obtaining sanction of the Second Judge who bad taken possession of the p.ro-pertie s by appointing a- Receiver.· His refusal to stay the execution of the 'present decree in the ' , D_.R •.Act proceedings will not in the circumstances of this i I t Sd.K.S. Govinda Pillai, Judge case amount to the implied sanction to execute the decree ~- against tne properties of- the judgment-debtor when they are in the possession of his Receiver. The order of the lower court is set aside and tb1s appeal allowed to the· extent indicated above. · We make no order as· to 4 co~ts_. 16-2-1951 (rue copy) Sd.K.A.Gangadhara Menon, Judge I R.$.3ls1. •