ENTAZUDDI SHEIKH Vs. RAM KRISHNA BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is "directed against an order made by the District Judge of Faridpur on 15th July 1919, by which he confirmed the sale of certain occupancy holdings being the property of an insolvent vested in a Receiver under the provisions of Section 18 of the Provincial Insolvent Ast. In the Court below the District Judge dealt at great length with the sale ability of occupancy holdings without the consent of the raiyat. That matter has been concluded by the decision of a Special Bench in the case of Chandra Benole Kundu v. AlaBux not yet reported. The result is that before us nothing has been said on that point, and the contentions advanced by the learned Pleader for the insolvent are these, (1) that the insolvent is only a part-owner of these occupancy holdings; (2) that some of the properties sold are not occupancy holdings, but under raiyat holdings; (3) that there is no evidence that the landlord gave ascent to the sale, (4) that no sale proclamation was issued, and (5) that the Receiver is not a necessary party.

(2.) Nothing need be said with regard to the last point. 2

(3.) If it be the case that the insolvent is only a part-owner of these occupancy holdings it follow up, on the principle laid down in the Full Bench case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy 27 Ind. Cas. 61 (F.B) : 42 C. 172 : 18 C.W.n. 818 : 31 C.L.J. 510, that no ascent of the landlord is necessary to the sale. What has been sold by the Receiver in these proceedings is the right, title and interest of the insolvent, and whether he is the sole owner or only a part- owner of the occupancy holdings is a matter which was not gone into in the Court below and need not be discussed by us in this appeal, The question is one which may have to be decided should the alleged an owner of the insolvent claim an interest in the property sold, Such decision, if necessary will have to be had, in separate proceedings, certainly not now.