https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198449 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prohibition relied on by the appellant was not in force when the suit was filed and the relevant provision had been repealed before decree.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. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:36:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198449 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prohibition relied on by the appellant was not in force when the suit was filed and the relevant provision had been repealed before decree.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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198449