Sheikh Jarip vs Ram Kumar De and another

The question, raised in this appeal, is whether a non-transferable occupancy holding can be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the ijaradar of a fractional share for the portion of the rent payable to him so as to pass the holding. Wo had to consider this question at some length in appeal from appellate decrees, Nos. 1590 and 1591 of 1897, decided on the 30th June 1899, See Sadagar Sirkar v. Krishna Chandra Nath, 3 C.W.N. 742 (1899) and we came to the conclusion that a fractional shareholder selling a non-transferable occupancy holding in execution of a decree which ho obtained for his share of the rent was in no better position than an outsider selling the holding in execution of a money decree. The "decree" referred to in sec. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the satisfaction of which an occupancy holding can be brought to sale is, we consider, a decree obtained by all the landlords, or at all events a decree obtained by some of the landlords for the entire rent in the presence of all, and not a decree obtained by one co-sharer for his share of the rent. There is no question raised in the present case of recognition of the tenancy by the co-sharers of the decree-holder, and we held in the cases to which we have referred that the consent of one of the co-sharers could not bind the others.

We think, therefore, that on the facts as found by the lower Courts, the Plaintiff acquired no right to this holding. The appeal must, therefore, succeed, and the suit must be dismissed with costs in all the Courts.