DARSON MAHTO Vs. SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is a sole landlord who obtained two sets of three rent decrees against the same tenant for the same holdings in the years 1934 and 1936, respectively. In execution of the decrees of 1934 the tenant's holdings were put up for sale subject to the arrears which fell due subsequent to the decree, and were purchased by the appellant. Later the landlord took out execution for the decrees of 1936 and sought to sell the same holdings again. The auction purchaser objected. His objection has been overruled by the Court below.

(2.) It is clear from the Full Bench decision in Nripendra Nath V/s. Kuldip Misra A.I.R. 1938 Pat. 545 that a third party auction purchaser who purchases a holding in execution of a decree for rent with notice that it is saddled with liability for arrears of rent for a period anterior to the date of the sale is liable for the rent of that period.

(3.) Mr. Ganguli, who appears on behalf of the appellant, has ingeniously argued that although he may be liable for the rent anterior to the date of sale by which he purchased, that liability cannot be enforced against him except by way of suit and not by any proceeding in execution of a decree to which he was not a party, namely, the decree of 1934. The auction purchaser, however, having purchased the property subject to a rent charge is a representative of the judgment-debtor, and therefore the rights and liabilities of the parties must be worked out by execution proceedings and not by a separate suit.