AZIZANNESSA Vs. DWARIKA PROSAD BORAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six Rules have been obtained in regard to the decree of the learned District Judge of Dinajpore hisposing, in appeal, of six applications to dave that number of sales vacated.

(2.) The learned Munsif allowed the applications and set aside the sales. The learned District Judge reversed those findings and held that the sales were good. The decree-holder is the Opposite Party No. 1 in the Rule, and the auction-purchaser the Opposite Party No. 2, while Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 are some of the tenants, who executed a mortgage in favour of the auction-purchaser and have settled their dispute with him under a compromise in the execution proceedings.

(3.) The sales were under the Bengal Tenancy Act and were held on the 10 June 1922. On the 3 December 1932 the possession of the property sold was delivered to the auction- purchaser. On the 2 January, 1923 six applications were filed to set aside the sales. In these applications two grounds were taken. The first was under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil P.C., charging fraud on the part of the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser. The second was, that as one of the judgment-debtors died before the institution of the execution proceedings the sales were bad. The learned District Judge has found that the applications under Order 21, Rule 90 were barred by limitation. As regards the second point, he held that even if the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor had not been brought on the record the sales were not invalid though those persons might not be affected thereby.