BROJADULAL DHAR Vs. KHOIRUMA KHATUN CHOUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law arising in this appeal, which is one under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, is concluded by authority.

(2.) It appears that on 19-4-1938, the appellants, who were the landlords of a patni held by the respondents, brought a suit for the putni rent for the years 1341-1343 B.S. When this suit, was pending, the appellants initiated proceedings under the Putni Regulation for the rent of the year 1344 B.S. and at the putni sale held in, consequence thereof, purchased the tenure themselves on 16-5-1938. The rent suit was subsequently decreed for Rs. 1714-14-6 on 4-11- 1938 Thereafter, Section 168. A was introduced into the Bengal Tenancy Act and came into force on 9-1-1941. On 19-1-1942, the appellants applied, for execution of the decree against other properties of the judgment-debtors and this appears to have, been the first application.

(3.) The inevitable objection under Section 168-A, Ben. Ten. Act was raised by the judgment- debtors who contended that, in view of the provisions of the section, the decree could not be executed against properties other than the defaulting tenure. The appellants replied by relying on the proviso to Section 168-A(1)(a) and contended that the tenure having been extinguished by merger, by reason of the purchase by themselves at the putni sale, the section could be no-bar to execution of the decree against other properties of the judgment- debtors. The Munsiff overruled the contention of the appellants in the view that the proviso applied only to a case where the term of the tenancy had expired and not to one where the tenure or holding had itself disappeared. Accordingly, he held that the appellants were not entitled to execute the decree by attachment and sale of other properties, although other modes of execution were open to them.