JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J.- This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of Rs. 900/-being rent for the period 14th February 1965 to 13th February 1968. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that the appellants were tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 25/- per mensem. Since the amount was not paid during the period mentioned above the suit was filed for the recovery of arrears of rent. The appellants set up the defence that in fact the house in dispute was sold to the plaintiff respondent on 19th March 1964 and another agreement was executed between the parties for reconveyance. Since the plaintiff respondent did not reconvey the property the appellant had to file a suit for specific performance. This suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court and the said decree was confirmed ultimately by the High Court. It was further alleged that in pursuance of the said decree the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,3000/- on 22nd November 1965 and thereafter because of the default on the part of the plaintiff respondent refusing to execute the sale deed that the appellant continued to remain in possession of the property as a tenant and as such the plaintiff respondent is not entitled to the amount claimed by him. 2. The trial court decreed the suit on 19th August 1970. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the lower appellant court on 25th May 1970. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25th May 1970 the present second appeal has been filed in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the moment the amount was deposited by the appellants on 22nd November 1965 in pursuance of a decree passed by the trial court in their suit for specific performance the plaintiff respondent ceased to be the owner of the property and as such the appellants could not be treated as tenants thereafter and no suit could be decreed for the period subsequent to 22nd November 1965. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In Hakim Enayat Ullah v. Khalil Ullah Khan, AIR 1938 Allahabad 432 a Division Bench of this Court had held that so long as the sale deed was not executed in favour of the decree holder the title remained vested with the judgment debtor. I respectfully agree with the decision mentioned above. On 22nd November 1965 only the amount was deposited and sale deed was not executed and until the sale deed was executed plaintiff respondent continued to be the owner of the property and was entitled to the recovery of arrears for the period during which he was the owner thereof. The view taken by the lower appellate court is according to law. I do not find any error of law. 5 In the circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their owns costs.