SHEIKH GUHI SAUDAGAR Vs. BHUTNATH BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the decision of the District Judge allowing an appeal from the order of the Munsif disallowing an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. The question is whether the interest which was put up for sale by the decree- holder was saleable.

(2.) Two matters were relied upon in evidence in proof of the fact that the holding was an occupancy holding, they being the Record of Rights and a com. promise in an action. The judgment-debtor objector is a transferee from the original occupancy raiyat without the consent of the landlord. There is no dispute that the original tenant was an occupancy raiyat, but the transfer being without the consent of the landlord, the landlord brought an action which was compromised. It was on the terms of that compromise that the learned Judge in the Court below relied for coming to the conclusion that it was an occupancy holding, and therefore was not saleable.

(3.) As regards the Record of Bights which if it had been relied upon by the Judge in the Court below, of course, would have been conclusive so far as this Court is concerned, that is to say, so far as regards the inferences which the Judge drew from that record. But it is irrelevant by reason of the fact that it referred to the interest held by the original tenant and did not refer to the interest held by the judgment debtor in this case; it is therefore immaterial.