BOLORAM KUMAR Vs. DANDIRAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal by contesting defendants 1-3 are as follows: Dag No. 695 corresponding to the present dag No 508 was part of the lakheraj lands owned by Hajo Madhab Temple. Defendant 19 is the present Daloi of the temple. The present area of the dag in question is 5 B 3 K 16 Lessas.

(2.) This land was held by Paiks of the temple on condition of rendering services to the deity. In 1889 a dispute arose between two groups of tenants. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff of the present suit, belonged to the group which was found entitled to tenancy rights in 9/20th share of the dag in question. The ancestors of the defendants (1-18, both contesting and pro forma) were found entitled to tenancy rights in the rest, viz., 11/20th share.

(3.) One Lakshminarayan got a money decree against some tenants of the group of the plain-tiff and got to entire dag attached in execution of his decree. Objections were raised to the attachment and, it appears, an Amin was appointed to make local enquiries as to the claims of the objectors. An attested copy of the report has been placed on the record. It appears from the report that there were three groups of objectors. The present plaintiff with others claimed 3 K 4 L. The Amin found them in possession of the area they claimed. This portion was marked Ka. Another group of objectors was found,, to be in possession of 2 B 8 K 7 L. This portion was marked Ka. The rest of the area of the dag 2 B 2 K 5 L marked Ga was not in the actual possession of anyone, It was described as dense forest. Exhibit 4 is an attested copy of the order on the claim put forward by the present plaintiff with others. This claim was disallowed on a compromise. No reference was made to the Amin's report in the order. No other order in the objection proceedings has been placed on the record. The attested copy of the sale certificate on the record shows that 9/20th share from the dag was put to auction and sold. The sale was not of any specified portion or plot. The cosharers may have held specified portions of land in groups and different cosharers in the two groups may also have occupied separate plots. But what was put to sale was not the specified plot or plots in the possession of the judgment-debtors but the undivided share to which they were entitled as tenants. The decree-holder according to the certificate became the purchaser of the tenancy rights in the dag in question to the extent of the share mentioned in the sale certificate, i. e., 9/20th share. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the decree-holder auction-purchaser purchased and got possession of specified portions Ka and Ga measuring 3 B O K 9 L, though he remained in actual possession of the Ka portion measuring 3 K 4 L on behalf of the decree-holder.