NOBIN CHANDRA CHOWDHURY Vs. BEPIN CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this Rule is, whether an appeal lay against an order of the Munsif refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit for recovery of rent, in which the amount claimed did not exceed fifty-rupees, the Judicial Officer, who passed the decree and order, having been empowered to exercise final jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) The determination of the question depends upon whether the order of the Munsif has decided a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto, within the meaning of Section 153 of the Act.

(3.) Now, the Full Bench in the case of Kali Mandal v. Ramsarbaswar Chakrabarti 32 C. 957 : 1 C.L.J. 476;9 C.W.N. 721 held that an order setting aside or declining to set aside a sale in execution of a decree for rent (where the decree-holder is the purchaser) is an order deciding a question relating to title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto, and falls within the proviso to Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and is, therefore, appealable, though there could be no appeal from the decree in the suit on account of the prohibition contained in the section.