SHASHADHAR CHOWDHURY Vs. BISHUN NARAIN KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising on this Rule is a proper one to be decided on revision.

(2.) One Mohendra was a patnidar, and he was sued for rent by three persons who added as pro forma defendants two others as being co-sharer landlords with the plaintiffs. Decree was obtained and this decree was put in execution by the procedure laid down in Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act as distinct from the procedure of the Code. At the sale on 12 May 1924 the present applicant became the purchaser for a price of Rs. 1,375. He now says that a relation of his had purchased Mohendra's interest in 1922 at a sale under a mortgage decree and that he has discovered that in the rent suit two other cosharer landlords were not parties, with the result that the decree was not such a decree as is contemplated in Chapter XIV. Accordingly, he says the sale of 1921 passed to him only the right, title and interest of Mohendra and took effect only as a sale under a money decree. As the whole of Mohendra's interest was transferred by the mortgage sale of 1922 the applicant claims under Order 21, Rule 91 to have the sale set aside and his purchase money refunded.

(3.) This contention has been negatived by the Munsif at Katwa and the District Judge of Burdwan on the ground that Section 174, Sub-section 3 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that