Kunja Behari Mondal vs Sambhu Chandra Roy and Another

The only point which has been raised in these two rules is whether the purchaser of a portion of an occupancy holding has such an interest in the holding as would entitle him to come in under sec. 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a person whose immoveable property has been sold, and to deposit the amount of the decree in order to have the sale set aside. We do not think that, in this case, it is necessary for us to say more than that, in our opinion such a person certainly had an interest in the holding as against the tenant, and, as such he had an interest in the holding which he was entitled to protect, which interest would be affected or destroyed by the sale. As to whether that interest was a valid interest or not against the landlord is a question which we think, it is unnecessary to determine in this application. We hold, therefore, that he had a right to come in under sec. 310A of the CPC and make the deposit in order to have the sale set aside. We therefore make the rule in each case absolute with costs, and direct that the order of the Munsif be set aside. We fix the hearing fee in each case at one gold mohur.