EASIN Vs. SRIMATI INTIJENNESSA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 6. The suit was originally brought in res peot of three plots, but for reasons into which it is not now necessary to enter the subject-matter of dispute was eventually reduoed to plot No. 3. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif but decreed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge for the whole of plot No. 3 with the exception of 5 gandas.

(2.) The holding of which this plot formed a portion originally belonged to one Ujir Ali. A rent- decree was obtained against him, and in execution of that decree the holding was sold and brought ostensively by defendant No. 10. Subsequently, defendant No. 10 executsd a release in favour of the plaintiff. He also executed a release in favour of defendant No. 12 which in appearance was prior in date to the release to the plaintiff. But it has been found by the Appellate Court that that release was antedated and. in fact, the plaintiff s lease was prior. The Court has further found that defendant No. 10 was really the benam dar for the plaintiff, the purchase having been made with her money. The defence of defendant No. 6 was that he had bought part of the land from Ujir Ali in 1302, and that he had bought 5 gandas from Nural Islam. It is in respect of the 5 gandas. portion that the suit has been dismissed. We are now corcerned with the rest of plot. No. 3.

(3.) The points taken before me arp, first, certain points in connection with Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Secondly, that the suit was untenable in view of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure; thirdly, that the Original decree in execution of which the properly was sold to plaintiff was bad in law, and, fourthly, that the suit was barred by limitation. I may mention at once that the third ground formulated by the learred Pleader in this appeal was subsequently withdrawn by him be saying that he was not in a position to press it. I shall, therefore, confine myself, to the other three points urged by him.