KRISHNA Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was registered as a miscellaneous appeal, but id appears to be a regular second appeal against an order passed in execution. The decree-holder attached a field which is recorded in the revenue papers as occupancy field of the judgment-debtor The judgment-debtor contended that the field was not liable to be attached and sold. The first Court upheld this contention, but in appeal it was held that the judgment-debtor was the malik makuza proprietor of the field and that, therefore, the field was liable to be sold. It seems probable that Ex. N-A-1, a copy of a judgment delivered in 1914, correctly explains how the field came to be recorded as a tenancy holding. It was originally the malik makbuza plot of the judgment-debtor's predecessors. Houses were built upon it, and it was accordingly recorded as abadi. Then the houses fell down and the land was cultivated. The original title of the judgment-debtor was overlooked and it was recorded as his occupancy holding. The judgment-debtor has been treating it as his tenancy holding, ever since the settlement entry of 1911. He filed a suit in 1913 and described the plot as his tenancy holding, It is clear that he has been admitting the title of the malguzar as his landlord ever since 1911. He cannot now claim any rights greater than those of a tenant in the land. An auction purchaser cannot, obtain any rights which the Judgment-debtor can no longer enforce. The rights of a malik makbuza then cannot be attached and sold. Tenancy rights are not attachable, and the rights of the judgment-debtor in this suit cannot be attached.

(2.) THE remark in Ex. N. A.-l, that the field is a malik makbuza plot, has no bearing on this case. It may be that in 1913 the judgment-debtor could have claimed this plot as his malik makbuza. He cannot do so now when the rights of the landlord as proprietor of the plot have been adverse to him for over 12 years.