JURANU MAHAMAD Vs. JATHI MAHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are clearly stated by the learned Munsif. In execution of a decree obtained by the defendant as mortgagee of an occupancy holding, the holding was put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff in February 1910 for Rs. 335. The plaintiff obtained possession in May 1910, but was subsequently sued in ejectment by the landlords in whose favour a decree was made on the 28th August 1912. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to recover his purchase-money with interest. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif who held that such a suit was not maintainable. An appeal by the plaintiff was successful and the appeal before us has been preferred by the defendant from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge dated the 6th March 1915.

(2.) The question is whether an auction-purchaser, who is deprived of the property sold to him by reason of the fact that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest therein or who is evicted under a title paramount to that of the judgment-debtor, is entitled to bring a suit to recover his purchase-money from the decree-holder.

(3.) It appears to have been held that Section 315 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 conferred a statutory right upon the purchaser which was sufficient to support a suit of this nature [Munna Singh v. Gajadhar Singh 5 A. 577; A.W.N. (1883) 130 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 491 (F.B.), Pachayappan v. Narayana 11 M. 269 : 12 Ind. Jur. 92 & 38 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 187, Gurshidawa v. Gangaya 22 B. 783 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N. S) 1106 and Ram Kumar Shaha v. Ram Gour Shaha 2 Ind. Cas. 559 : 37 C. 67 : 13 C.W.N. 1080 : 10 C.L.J. 558].