AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 227 wordsIn this case, the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah has set aside a sale in execution of a rent decree on the ground that the auction-purchaser is the benamidar of the judgment-debtor. The auction-purchaser appeals.
A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies, the order having been passed u/s 173 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This point appears to be concluded by the authority of the cases cited in Mr. Rampini''s Commentary of the Bengal. Tenancy Act, u/s 173.
It is argued on the authority of the case of Chand Monee Dasya v. Santo Monee Dasya 24 C. 707, that a second appeal lies in this case. We find, however, that in that case the second appellant to the High Court was one of the judgment-debtors, who had asked that the sale should be set aside on the ground that the purchaser was a benamidar of one of his fellow--judgment-debtors. It may well be that Section 234 of the former C.P.C. gave a judgment-debtor or a decree-holder a right of appeal against an order u/s 173, but this case is no authority for holding that an auction-purchaser has a similar right.
The cases cited establish that an auction-purchaser has no right of appeal against an order passed u/s 173 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This appeal must, accordingly, be dismissed with costs.