GOPAL CHANDRA KARMOKAR Vs. BASIR GAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point raised in this appeal is that the case of Hridoy Nath Das Choudhry v. Krishna Prosad Sircar 34 C. 298 : 6 C.L.J. 153 : 11 C.W.N. 497, has not been correctly decided and that the lower appellate Court was wrong in following the same.

(2.) I think I am bound by that judgment. The three jamas in this case having been sold at one sale in execution of one decree recoverable for the same, the special incidents of a sale under the Bengal Tenancy Act have, under the above ruling, no bearing upon this case.

(3.) The next point that is pressed upon me is that, supposing that the above ruling has been correctly decided, the tenures were sold by the Court expressly with the right to avoid all incumbrances and that the sale certificate of the purchaser gave him that right; that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff must be considered to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of any defect in the procedure leading to the sale, and that, therefore, whether the purchase was correct or not, he is entitled to the rights mentioned in his sale certificate. Reliance is placed in this connection on the case of Rewa Mahton V/s. Ram Kishen Singh 14 C. 18 at p. 25 : 13 I.A. 106.