(1.) The facts that give rise to the present appeal are that there are two plots of land which belonged to the ancestors (father and paternal uncle) of defendant No. 1, but were purchased by the plaintiff in execution of a decree against them obtained by him. This purchase was admittedly made in the name of defendant No. 2, Ram Tome Das. The plaintiff purchased the land on the 14 of January 1895, obtained a sale certificate and got delivery from Court on the 26 of August 1895. It is not clear whether possession was given to him through Ram Tome Das or to him directly. It is, however, alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the judgment-debtor continued in possession and defendant No. 1, his only heir (his brother's son), did not give up possession of the land, which necessitated the bringing of the present suit.
(2.) Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, denies the plaintiff's purchase and his title to the land. The purchase was admittedly made in the name of defendant No. 2, Ram Tome Das. The plaintiff claimed that Ram Tome Das was his benamidar and the defendant No. 1 claimed that the same Ram Tome Das made the purchase for him, defendant No. 1.
(3.) The first Court held, that the plaintiff's purchase was valid and true. We may here observe that the present appeal refers to one of the plots, plot No. 1. Defendant No. 1 appealed to the Subordinate-Judge, and his appeal was dismissed. Defendant No. 1 now appeals to this Court and the only ground urged on his behalf is that the lower Courts ought to have held that the plaintiff's purchase, at a sale of the disputed land, being without the Court's permission was void and inoperative against the judgment-debtors; and in support of this he relies on the case of Mahomed Gazee Chowdhry V/s. Ram Loll Sen 10 C. 757. The facts of that case are different from those of the present:In that case the plaintiff had applied for leave to bid at the sale, and his application was refused; and, notwithstanding this refusal he purchased at the auction.