TILAK BRITTIAL Vs. RUDESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We cannot go behind the finding of the learned District Judge of the Assam Valley Districts that at the time of the alleged sale the plaintiff was in occupation of the land as a mortgagee. The facts of the present case cannot be distinguished from those of the case which the learned Judge has cited and followed. We refer to the case of Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secretary of State 34 C. 207 : 5 C. L. J. 390.

(2.) The learned Pleader for the plaintiff has very properly drawn our attention to the case of Sonai Chutia v. Sonaram Chutia 34 Ind. Cas. 692 : 20 C. W. N. 195. That decision was founded upon facts which, so far as we can see, do not exist in the present case. It is, therefore, distinguishable.

(3.) In the view we take, the appeal must be dismissed with the usual order as to costs.