formalities were completed before coming into force of the amended Act, as pointed out earlier, pursuant to the order of the High Court, the sale deed was executed only on 2810-1996 whereas the amendment Act (Act 2 of 1996) came into force on 11-1-1996, much earlier to the execution of the sale deed, hence, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. As rightly concluded by the High Court, the decree in OP No. 4 of 1977 became a nullity on and from 11-1-1996, the executing court committed an error in executing the sale deed after coming into force of the amended Act. Further, as rightly observed by the High Court, unless the sale deed is executed either by the Mission or by the Court, the fruits of the decree will not be realised by the tenants and the proceedings will come to an end only upon execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the tenant cannot be heard to say that the proviso applies to him and that the proceedings are not invalidated. The High Court is right in holding that the decree not having been executed by means of a sale deed, the proceedings are deemed to be pending and, therefore, were determined with the coming into force of the Amendment Act.
