Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by the decree holders is directed against the order dated 30-1-1973 passed by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, allowing the judgment-debtors objection under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The appellants filed a suit on 27-5-1950, which was registered as T.S. 71 of 1950 for petition of Zamindari properties as landlords against the other cosharer landlords, after an adverse order under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to plot No. 2137 declaring the present respondents possession. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the above plot. The respondents whose objection under Sec. 47 has succeeded were impleaded as party defendants as certain bakasht lands were settled with them by the defendants-landlords. The suit was decreed on 25-8-1952 and the appellants were granted a decree for recovery of possession of the settled lands from the settlee respondents. Since the decree was preliminary in nature, proceeding for preparation of final decree were taken. At this stage, a notification under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was published vesting the Zamindari interest in the Stale of Bihar. By Sec. 6 of the Act, the outgoing landlord in khas possession of bakasht land was allowed to retain the same in the capacity of a raiyat under the State. Subject to this and other provisions of the Act which are not relevant for the present case, the landlord ceased to have any interest in the Zamindari property and suits in regard to the same were dropped under the Act. However, in the present case, a final decree was passed on 29-7-1959. A first appeal against the same was filed and was later dismissed for default. The present execution case 14 of 1968 was started by the appellants for executing the final decree. The settlee defendants have successfully challenged the appellants prayer for delivery of possesion. Hence this appeal. 3. However, in the present case, a final decree was passed on 29-7-1959. A first appeal against the same was filed and was later dismissed for default. The present execution case 14 of 1968 was started by the appellants for executing the final decree. The settlee defendants have successfully challenged the appellants prayer for delivery of possesion. Hence this appeal. 3. The case of the appellants is that after the passing of the decree, there was a private arrangement between the parties that the judgment debtors would not challenge the claim of the decree holders by way of appeal or otherwise and in consideration whereof the decree holders would not execute their decree for costs, but in breach of the agreement the judgment-debtors filed a first appeal in the High Court which they later abandoned on protest by decree-holders. They cannot now raise any objection to the execution of the decree. The judgment-debtors denied this story and the Court has agreed with them. 4. Proceeding further, the Court has held that the decree holders were not in khas possession of the disputed land on the date their Zamindari interest vested in the State of Bihar and, therefore, they did not acquire any right under Section 6 of the Act. Whatever right, title and interest they had in the property were completely divested and they cannot now maintain their claim of possession. As a consequence of the passing of the Land Reforms Act, after the preliminary decree and before the final decree, the decree in regard to delivery of possession has become incorporate and the execution has, therefore, become infructuous. 5. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned Counsel for the decree-holders-appellants has not challenged the finding of the court below that the decree holders case regarding an agreement with the judgment debtor is incorrect. He has also assumed that the case of the judgment debtors of their continuous possession over the land since before the filing of the suit is right. 5. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned Counsel for the decree-holders-appellants has not challenged the finding of the court below that the decree holders case regarding an agreement with the judgment debtor is incorrect. He has also assumed that the case of the judgment debtors of their continuous possession over the land since before the filing of the suit is right. He has, however, pressed the following points;- (i) In spite of the Bihar Land Reforms Act coming into force, the interest of the appellants in the bakasht land including the plot in question did not vest in the State and their claim cannot be defeated on this ground; and (ii) The objection raised by the judgment debtors is barred by principles of resjudicata by reason of the passing of the final decree and some other orders passed in the suit during the proceeding for preparation of the final decree. 6. Mr. Roy compared the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act with those of the corresponding U. P. Act and argued that while under the U. P. Act the entire interest of the landlord vested in the State, that was not the position under the Bihar Act. Interests of several categories were saved from vesting and the claim of the appellants in the present case is one of them. He made an attempt to distinguish title, interest, right of possession, ownership etc. with reference to the Bihar Land Reforms Act and relied upon the provisions of this Act and the Transfer of Property Act. He further argued that the decree for possession could not be frustrated on account of the passing of the Act. Reliance was placed on a number of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The second point pressed on behalf of the appellants, on the basis of the principles of res judicata, appears to be well founded and in that view, it does not appear essential to deal with the first point. During the proceeding for preparation of final decree, the judgment debtors filed an application on 8-1-1958 in the suit asserting that the claim of the decree holders could not proceed any further as they were not in khas possession of the lands on the date of vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar. A copy of the application has been marked as Ext. B in the present miscellaneous case. A copy of the application has been marked as Ext. B in the present miscellaneous case. The objection was dismissed on the basis of a decision of this Court by order No 100 dated 1 l-9-1958 as contained in Ext. D. By a subsequent order dated 30-4-1959, the report of the Pleader Commissioner was confirmed with certain modifications and thereafter the final decree which is under execution was passed. 5.Mr. Roy, relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Baijnath Prasad V/s. Ramphal -- , urged that the question was expressly as well as impliedly decided against the judgment debtors and cannot now be re agitated in execution. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondents, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Suraj Ahir V/s. Prithi Nath Singh -- , in support of his proposition that even the landlords right to possession of bakasht land against a trespasser vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and a claim in that regard must be rejected. The view of this Court relied on in the order dated 11-9-1958 (Ext. D) was overruled and does not hold good. He also contended that the Supreme Court had impliedly overruled the decision of this Court in Baijnath Prasad V/s. Ramphat (supra), by its decision in Raghunath Pradhani V/s. Damodra Mahapatra -- , I do not find any merit in either of these submissions. For applying the principle of res judicata, it is not relevant to consider as to whether the earlier decision was rightly decided, 1C is where the case of a party is weak on merits that a plea of res judicata becomes vital for him. The incorrectness of the earlier decision is, therefore, of no avail. The other objection of Mr. Ghosh that the decision of this Court in Baijnath Prasad v. Ramphal (supra), must be held to have been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court has also no merit. But so far as the present case is concerned, I do not think that the said decision is really in point. There it was held that the principle res judicata applied from stage to stage in an execution case. In the present appeal, the appellants are not trying to succeed on the basis of an earlier decision in the present execution proceeding. There it was held that the principle res judicata applied from stage to stage in an execution case. In the present appeal, the appellants are not trying to succeed on the basis of an earlier decision in the present execution proceeding. The point is that the present controversy ought to have been raised before the final decree was prepared and it was actually so raised and the question was decided against the judgment-debtor in express terms. The Court after finalising the Commissioners report passed a final decree. The executing Court by the impugned order has reached a conclusion inconsistent with the decree which it can not legitimately do. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The contention of Mr. Ghose must, therefore, be rejected. 7. For the reasons indicated above, 1 hold that the impugned order is illegal which is accordingly sec aside and the appeal is allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200.00 The executing Court should now proceed to execute the decree in accordance with law. S.Ali Ahmad, J. 8 I agree.