Short Note : Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under. The appellant-Mishrilal obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit house against the respondents Sagarmal and Sunderbai (respondent in this appeal). In execution of this decree, a sale-deed was executed by Sagarmal and Sunderbai and it was got registered also. At the time the agreement to sell was executed by Sagarmal and Sunderbai, some portion of the house was in occupation of the respondent-Mohanlal (respondent in M. A. 93 of 1975) as a tenant. After the sale-deed was executed, a dispute arose as to whether one room, which according to the decree-holder was in possession of the defendant-judgment-debtors and which according to the respondent-Mohanlal was in his possession as a tenant, should or should not be given possession of in the execution proceedings. When after the execution of the sale-deed steps were taken by the decree-holder to take possession of that house, the respondent-Mohanlal claimed that he was in possession as a tenant and that the decree-holder could only get symbolical possession and not actual possession. Held: Once the decree-holder had thus reported satisfaction of the decree by obtaining a registered sale-deed and possession of the suit house and the executing Court also recorded a full satisfaction and filed the execution application in full satisfaction of the decree, where was the question of any application being entertained by the decree-holder for deliver) of possession of the whole or a part of the decretal house. If, after obtaining and reporting delivery of possession and after recording full satisfaction or the decree, any dispute arose either between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor or between the decree-holder on the one side and the judgment, debtor and the third person on the other side, then the only remedy available to the decree-holder was to file a suit based either on title or suit for eviction based on relationship of a landlord and a tenant. As already stated above, a suit for eviction and possession has already been filed by the decree-holder and when that is so, no proceedings under section 47 could be instituted by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor or against a third person who was claiming to be the tenant in the disputed room. As already stated above, a suit for eviction and possession has already been filed by the decree-holder and when that is so, no proceedings under section 47 could be instituted by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor or against a third person who was claiming to be the tenant in the disputed room. In my opinion, therefore, the executing Court could not and should not have entertained any application by the decree-holder in the manner in which it was done in this case, Appeal dismissed.