JAGNESWAR SIKDAR Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant's case is as follows: In execution of a money-decree against the defendants he caused land belonging to them to be sold in auction; he bought it himself and took formal possession through the agency of the Court; he failed to obtain actual possession of Plots Nos. 1 and 2 and although he obtained the actual possession of Plot No. 3, he was afterwards turned out by the defendants. The defendants in answer pleaded that the plots formed part of their non-transferable occupancy jote, that they know nothing of the alleged sale until the institution of the present suit, and that the sale was brought about by the suppression of notices.

(2.) There is no dispute about the nature of the jote of which the lands in suit form a part. The defendants have occupancy rights in the jote, and there is no custom sanctioning the transfer of the holding. On these admitted facts the Courts below held that the plaintiff had acquired nothing. They also held that the sale was bad, and that on that account also the plaintiff's suit could not succeed. The plaintiff in consequence lost his suit in both Courts and it is he who prefers the appeal.

(3.) His first ground is that the lower Courts are wrong in the view they have taken about the effect of an execution sale of a non-transferable jote. The learned pleader who appears for the defendants admits this, so it is not necessary to say more on this ground.