Majeda Khatun and Others vs Nurul Huq and Others

Edgley, J.—Having regard to the order dated 10th December 1946, under which Rule No. 922 was discharged against opposite parties 14, 15 and 17. This Rule (No. 922) has now become infructuous as against the other parties to the rule, namely, as against all the parties to that rule, which relates to title Suit No. 126 of 1945.

With regard to Rule No. 921, the position is that a title suit instituted by the petitioners has I been stayed under the provisions of Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In this suit the petitioners were seeking to obtain a declaration of : their title in respect of some property, which they had purchased at a revenue sale on 6th January 1928. Prom the terms of the plaint, it does not appear that this suit relates to any debt. It would therefore appear that Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, can have no application in a case of this sort and the principles laid down in Sachirani Biswas Vs. Nagendra Nath, , are applicable. This rule must accordingly be made absolute with costs�hearing fee one gold mohur. The order staying the suit will be set aside and it is directed that Suit No. 124 of 1945 should be tried as soon as possible.