JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Respondent filed a rent suit for realization of rent for the Oriya Sales 1359 to 1361 corresponding to English calendar years 1952 to 1954. The suit was decreed ex parte. Tile decree was executed and the properties of the Appellant were attached for sale. Coming to know about the decree the Appellant paid the rent for the Oriya Salas 1359 and 1360 and first (sic) of 1361. He however raised objection u/s 47, CPC that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for rent for the second kist of 1361. This objection was overruled by both the Courts below. The tenant has accordingly filed this Misc. Appeal against the confirming Appellate decree. 2. Mr. Patnaik raises the following contentions: (1) The estate having vested in the State of Orissa on 1-5-1904, the Respondent was not entitled to recover rent for the agricultural year from 14-4-1954 to 13-4-1955 except for 15 days from 14-4-1954 to 1-5-1954; (2) The Courts below were wrong in holding that the Respondent was entitled to recover rent from Sunia to Sunia and not in accordance with the agricultural year commencing on the 1st day of Baisakh of the Oriya year as defined in Section 3(1) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Both the contentions require careful examination. 3. There can be no controversy that after the vesting the Respondent was not entitled to recover rent from the Appellant. Mr. Sinha however contends that the tenant ought to have taken this objection in the suit itself and it is not entertain able in execution of the decree as the decree is not without jurisdiction. It is well settled that the executing Court can go behind the decree if the Court passing the decree lacks inherent jurisdiction. The executing Court can also refuse to execute the decree if the property in respect of which execution has been filed is no longer available for execution. Haji Sk. Subhan Vs. Madhorao deals with a case where the objection was not with respect to the invalidity of the decree. The executing Court can also refuse to execute the decree if the property in respect of which execution has been filed is no longer available for execution. Haji Sk. Subhan Vs. Madhorao deals with a case where the objection was not with respect to the invalidity of the decree. The objection was based on the effect of the provisions of the Act which had deprived the decree holder of the proprietary rights including the right to recover possession over the land in suit and under whose provisions the Respondent had obtained the right to remain in possession of it in those circumstances this Lordships were of opinion that the executing Court can refuse to execute the decree holding that it had become inexecutable on account of the change in Jaw and (sic) effect. If is to be noted that this change in Jaw had come into force prior to the decree was passed. This Lordships however held that the position was not affected for the reasons already stated. This decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Here a money decree has been passed. The only difficulty is that the decree has been passed in favour of a person who was not entitled to recover it. In such a case the Court passing the decree did not lack inherent jurisdiction nor the subject matter in respect of which execution is sought ceases to be executable. Law is equally well settled that pleas which merely challenge the validity of the propriety of the decree on the ground that it is contrary to certain provisions of law are not entertainable u/s 47, and in such a case the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The allegations about the impropriety or illegality of the decree that it has contravened certain provisions of law cannot be entertained in execution proceedings, see Rana Harkishandas Lallubhai and Others Vs. Rana Gulabdas Kalyandas and Another, . In this case the decree has been passed for the year 1361 in favour of a wrong person. That does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree. The subject matter is also a money claim. The executing Court can direct the Defendant to pay the money. The objection u/s 47, CPC must therefore be overruled. 4. In this case the decree has been passed for the year 1361 in favour of a wrong person. That does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree. The subject matter is also a money claim. The executing Court can direct the Defendant to pay the money. The objection u/s 47, CPC must therefore be overruled. 4. That a part Section 5(b) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 gives indication that passing such an order does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. It runs thus: All rents, cases, royalties and other dues accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and not to the outgoing Intermediary and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid discharge, and all such rents, cesses, royalties and other dues shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; Provided that where the date of vesting falls within the period to which the dues relate only such proportion of the dues shall be payable as the period or beginning with the said date and ending with the person aforesaid bears to the whole of that period; Provided further that any part of such dues appropriated by the Intermediary beyond what may be found due to him in accordance with the provisions of this clause may be recovered by the State Government as arrears of land revenue or by the deduction of the amount from the compensation payable to such Intermediary; Provided also that the payment of any amount on account of any such rents, cesses, royalties and other dues made to the outgoing Intermediary in pursuance of the orders of any Court of Law shall constitute a valid discharge. The this proviso makes it quite clear that any payment made to the outgoing Intermediary in respect of the dues belonging to the State would be a valid discharge so far as the tenant is concerned in the payment is made in pursuance of the orders of any court. Here the decree has directed the payment and if the payment is made by the tenant under the orders of the executing Court it would amount to a valid discharge so far as he is concerned. Here the decree has directed the payment and if the payment is made by the tenant under the orders of the executing Court it would amount to a valid discharge so far as he is concerned. A tenant could have no further liability to the State which is the real landlord subsequent to the date of vesting. This proviso has a further significance that it indicates that payment in certain circumstances does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. On the aforesaid analysis the objection of the tenant u/s 47, CPC must be overruled. 5. In view of the aforesaid conclusion the other question raised requires no examination. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed