RAMA NATH PARUI Vs. HARISH CHANDRA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of his title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the land in suit.

(2.) His case briefly was that the disputed lands were held by one Hem Chandra Paehal, defendant 2, as a nontransferable occupancy holding at an annual rental of Rs. 147 odd under the pro forma defendants 5 to 10, that in execution of a decree for rent obtained by defendant 5 under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten Act, against defendant 2 the said holding was put up to sale and was purchased by plaintiff 1 for Rs. 80 on 22 November, 1920. That he obtained posseson through Court and let out a portion of the land to plaintiff 2. An objection was filed by defendant 1, under Rule 100, Order 21, Civil P.C., and the objection was allowed. Hence this suit. The case for defendant I, who alone contested the suit, was that he had purchased the holding from defendant 2 on 22 June, 1913 His case was that the decree under which the holding was sold and purchased by the plaintiff was not a rent decree but a money decree and that nothing passed by the sale in execution of that decree except the right, title and interest of defendant 2 which had already passed to him by the sale on 22 June, 1913.

(3.) The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs, holding that the decree in execution of which the plaintiff purchased was a rent decree. This finding was reversed on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge holding that the decree under which the plaintiff purchased was not a rent decree but only a money decree and that nothing but the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor passed to the plaintiff.