JANKI MAHTON Vs. BAIJ NATH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the petitioner whose claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. has been disallowed by the Court below.

(2.) His case is that the property sought to be attached and sold was purchased by the petitioner in execution of a rent decree obtained by the father of the present decree-holders against the present judgment-debtor Jobraj Koeri. The petitioner produced a sale certificate, which is marked Ex. 1 in the case. He also produced the writ for delivery of possession in respect of the land purchased by him under the sale certificate (Ex. 1), and this writ was marked Ex. 2 in the case. His case was that he has been in possession since his purchase about 11 years ago, and that the landlord is unwilling to accept rent from him, and he had on certain occasions to deposit the rent in Court and he produced a challan (Ex. 3) showing deposit of rent under Section 61, Ben. Ten. Act.

(3.) The learned Munsif, who heard the claim case referred to the fact that the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land in question at a Court sale, but he makes no reference to the sale certificate or to any of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner. He has wholly overlooked the fact that the land in respect of which he preferred the present claim was alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner in execution of a rent decree obtained by the father of the present decree-holders against the present Judgment-debtor and if the petitioner purchased this land in execution of a rent decree, there seems to be good reason for his contention that that property ought not to be sold again as the property of the judgment-debtor Jobraj Koeri.