11 of 1942 .
The respondents case further was that their possession was disturbed by the appellant thereafter and they had to go to the criminal companyrt in that companynection.
The suit was resisted by the appellant on a number of grounds.
We shall companyfine ourselves therefore to these two points only.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1959, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
The case of the respondents was that the property in dispute belonged to one Jatindra Mohan Hajra, who was the father of three of the respondents.
the meantime it appears that Kali Krishna Chandra sold the property to the present appellant in June 1942.
Kali Krishna Chandra obtained a mortgage decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Burdwan and in execution of the said decree got the mortgaged property sold, purchased the property in auction sale and thus came into possession thereof in November 1937.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, B. P. Singh and K. Chakravarti, for the appellant.
After the introduction of S. 37 A in the Act, the respondents applied thereunder for getting back possession of the property.
He mortgaged the property to Kali Krishna Chandra who was a defendant in the suit.
The respondents brought a suit in the companyrt of the Second Munsif, Burdwan for a declaration that they were entitled to the property in dispute, for companyfirmation of their possession thereof and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their possession.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
901 of 1963.
Then followed an appeal to the High Court.
This happened before S. 37 A was introduced in the Act by the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Amendment Act, 1942, No.
In the alternative they prayed for delivery of possession to them of the property in dispute in case it was found that they were number in possession.
1039 of 1954.
In the present appeal, however, learned companynsel for the appellant has raised only two rounds before us, namely i that the Debt Settlement Board hereinafter referred to as the Board had numberjurisdiction in the matter as the decree in the mortgage suit was for more than Rs.
The respondents succeeded in their application under s. 37 A of the Act and obtained possession of the property in suit in November 1947.
VII of 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1 to 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. This appeal by special, leave raises a question as to the interpretation of S. 37 A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, No.
N. Mukherjee, for respondent Nos.
Sukumar Ghose, for respondent No.
5,000, and ii that s. 37 A of the Act did number apply to a bona fide purchaser for value from the auction purchaser.
But the criminal case resulted in acquittal and companysequently the respondents brought the present suit in order to remove the cloud on their title and to obtain possession in case it was found that they were number in possession.
In the present appeal by special leave, the appellant raises the same two points before us.
