Executing court cannot reopen jurisdictional facts in execution unless decree is a nullity on the face of the record.

An executing court must execute a decree according to its tenor and cannot reopen issues that were or could have been decided in the suit. An objection in execution is available only where the decree is a nullity and the lack of jurisdiction appears on the face of the record. Where the alleged defect depends on factual and interpretative inquiries, such as the nature of the land, the lease terms, or the user of the premises at the relevant time, the executing court cannot investigate those matters. The decree of ejectment therefore could not be refused execution on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an executing court can refuse to execute a decree of ejectment on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, when the alleged jurisdictional defect depends on examination of the lease terms and surrounding facts.

Analysis: A court executing a decree must take the decree according to its tenor and cannot re-open questions that were or could have been decided in the suit. An objection to validity in execution is entertainable only where the decree is a nullity and the lack of jurisdiction appears on the face of the record. Where determining jurisdiction requires investigation into facts, such as the nature of the land and the user at the relevant date, the executing court cannot enquire into those matters. The question whether the premises were governed by the rent legislation and whether the suit land was used for agricultural purposes depended on factual and interpretative inquiries that were not apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The executing court had no jurisdiction to refuse execution on the ground urged, and the decree could not be treated as a nullity in execution.

---