This is an appeal against the order dated 5.8.83 passed in Civil Misc. appeal No. 83/82 by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala confirming the order dated 31.8.82 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agar­tala, in Misc. Case No. 27/78 rejecting the prayer of the appe­llant for restitution u/s. 144, C.P.C. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The lear­ned Subordinate Judge, Agartala hi Title Suit No. 43/59 passed a decree for possession and mesne profits in favour of the res­pondent 1 against the appellant. In Second Appeal No. 21,64, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Tripura, confirmed the decree by the judgment dated 26.12.67 with a direction to determine the mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12, C.P.C. In the execu­tion of the decree, the possession of the suit land was deli­vered to the Decree-holder on 5.12.75, in Misc. Case No. 10/68 passed an ex parte order that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 43/59 was in fructuous and it was not executable and that the appellant was entitled to the restoration of the suit land. He passed the order on the ground that the suit land had been vested in the Government of Tripura as contemplated by section 136 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 for short the "Act". As a result of the order passed in Misc. No. 10/68 the appellant made an application under section 144, C.P.C. for restitution of the suit land, possession of which was delivered to the decree-holder on 5.11.68. In Misc. Case No. 27/78, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the prayer on 31.8.82. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge an appeal was filed and the same was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura,. Agartala. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. There­after, this Second Appeal has been filed in this court against the order of the learned Additional District Judge. 3. There must be an end of this kind of litigation. U/s 144, C.P.C. in the context of the case in hand, the petitioner has not only to satisfy that he is a party entitled to any bene­fit by way of restitution or otherwise but also that the decree has been varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other procee­ding. There must be an end of this kind of litigation. U/s 144, C.P.C. in the context of the case in hand, the petitioner has not only to satisfy that he is a party entitled to any bene­fit by way of restitution or otherwise but also that the decree has been varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other procee­ding. The question which arises for consideration is whether the original decree passed in Title Suit No. 43/59 relating to the possession has been varied or reversed as contemplated by section 144, C.P.C. considering the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 10/68. The learned Subor­dinate Judge has passed an order holding that the suit land has been vested under the "Act" in the Government of Tripura, for short 'the Government' with effect from 14.11.61. The result of vesting the suit land in the "Government" is that the origi­nal decree-holder (respondent) has lost all the bundle of rights which she possessed including the right to obtain possession under the decree. All the rights of the decree-holder in the suit land vest in the "Government" and as a consequence of it the right of the decree-holder (respondent 1) to obtain posse­ssion also vests in the "Government" even though the "govern­ment" has the right to get possession of the suit land under other provisions of the "Act". In view or the matte", the decree has been transferred to the Government by operation of law that is, the Government has become transferee of the decree by operation of law. As such, the "Government" could or may apply, if the decree has not been executed of the appellant is in possession of the land, for execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. to get possession from the appellant (Judg­ment-debtor) even though the "Government" can get possession under other provisions of the "Act'. This view of mine also finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Haji SK. Subhan vs. Madhorao, AIR 1962 SC 1230 . In Haji the Supreme Court held : "Any rights which accrue to the proprietor under a decree by virtue of his proprietary right will not under the scheme of the Act, prevail over the statutory cons­equences following the vesting of the proprietary rights in the State and will be lost to the proprietor. In Haji the Supreme Court held : "Any rights which accrue to the proprietor under a decree by virtue of his proprietary right will not under the scheme of the Act, prevail over the statutory cons­equences following the vesting of the proprietary rights in the State and will be lost to the proprietor. One such right is the right of the proprietor under a decree to obtain possession over cartain land. Such a decree for recovery of possession is the result of the recognition of the proprietor's right of possession as proprietor over that land as against the claim of the judgment-debtor to retain possession of that land. The proprietary right vests in the State and as a consequence of it the pro­prietor's right under the decide to obtain possession also vests in the State, even though the State gets right to the possession of the land under other provisions of the Act as well". In Haji (supra) also the Nagpur High Court passed a decree in ignorance of the Madhya pradesh abolition of pro­prietary Rights (Estate, Mahals, Alienated lands) Act, 1950 for short the "M.P. Act". In the "M.P. Act" there are also provisions similar to those of sections 134, 135 and 136 of the "Act" in the execution proceeding the plea of "in executable decree" was taken in view of said "M.P. Act". In the back­ground of this position the original form of decree exists. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree has been varied or reversed by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge pas­sed in Misc. Case No. 10/68. That being the position, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge to the effect that the decree is in fructuous and not executable and that the appe­llant is entitled to the restoration of the suit land is applicable to the Decree-holder only and not to the "Government". The order was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 10/86 in the absence of the "Government" on 14-2-75 after the land has been vested in the Government on 14-11-61. In the petition of the appellant u/s 144, CPC the "Govern­ment" or the "Collector" concerned who has to take charge of the suit land u/s 137 of the "Act" has not been made a party. The "Government" or the "Collector" is a necessary party in the present case. 4. In the petition of the appellant u/s 144, CPC the "Govern­ment" or the "Collector" concerned who has to take charge of the suit land u/s 137 of the "Act" has not been made a party. The "Government" or the "Collector" is a necessary party in the present case. 4. For the foregoing reasons, it is concluded that the decree has not been varied or reversed as contemplated by sec­tion 144 CPC, and that the case does not fall within the meaning of section 144 CPC and that the appeal must fail. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further sub­mitted that if the case does not satisfy the provision of section 144 CPC the power u/s 151 CPC may be exercised. I have also already discussed the facts of the case. The case of the appellant itself shows that persons who have no rights in the suit land are fighting. It is also not known if there is any jural relationship between the respondents and the "Govern­ment" under the "Act" In view of the discussion above, after the possession of the suit land has been delivered to the Decree-holder, the right of the further possession of the Decree-holder has been transferred to the "Government". If the Decree-holder is found in possession illegal the "Government is to take care of it. In such a case section 151, CPC is not attracted. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura and the concerned Collector with a copy of the original decree.