Enforcement of charge and broad appellate powers under Order 41 Rule 33 allowed relief to a non-appealing respondent.

A charge on property remained enforceable because the tenancy prohibition relied on by the appellant was not in force when the suit was filed and the relevant provision had been repealed before decree. The fact that the land was said to be an occupancy holding did not defeat enforcement of the charge. The appellate court could also grant relief to the respondent despite her not filing an appeal, because Order 41 Rule 33 CPC permits the court to pass the decree that ought in law to have been made and to do so in favour of a non-appealing respondent. The appeal failed and the decree enforcing the charge was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a charge on the property could be enforced notwithstanding the appellant's plea that the land was held as an occupancy holding. (ii) Whether the appellate court could grant relief enforcing the charge in favour of the respondent even though the respondent had not filed an appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a charge on the property could be enforced notwithstanding the appellant's plea that the land was held as an occupancy holding.

Analysis: The prohibition relied upon by the appellant under the tenancy law was not in force when the suit was filed, and Section 12 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 had been repealed before the decree was passed. The property therefore did not stand in the way of enforcement of the charge.

Conclusion: The charge was enforceable against the property.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could grant relief enforcing the charge in favour of the respondent even though the respondent had not filed an appeal.

Analysis: Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure conferred wide appellate power to pass the decree that ought in law to have been made, and that power could be exercised in favour of a respondent who had not preferred an appeal. The respondent's omission to appeal did not bar the appellate court from granting appropriate relief.

Conclusion: The appellate court was competent to enforce the charge in favour of the respondent despite the absence of an appeal by her.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree enforcing the charge in favour of the respondent was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appellate court may grant relief to a non-appealing respondent if that is the decree which ought in law to have been passed, and a repealed tenancy prohibition cannot defeat enforcement of a charge.

---