Possession was supposed to be taken on March 3, 1932.
Thereupon Aswini Kumar filed the suit which was originally numbered as Suit No.
Fani Bhushan filed a suit against Hossaini Bux and got possession of the whole plot.
So the landlords brought rent suit No.
That is the title on which the plaintiff filed the suit.
The High Court agreeing with the finding of the First Appellate Court has held that inspite of the property being purchased in auction by Shewpujan in 1932 the possession of this plot companytinued to be with Purshottam Sonar.
Objections had been raised to the entries made in the records of rights at the time of the survey on behalf of Shewpujan but the objections were rejected and the name of Purshottam Sonar was companyfirmed in the records of rights as being in possession.
In the summary proceedings the Magistrate found that Fani Bhushan was in possession and hence on July 24, 1960 orders were passed restoring possession to Fani Bhushan.
800/ .
The holding originally belonged to the Bagchis who sold it to one Purshottam Sonar on 21 9 1927 for a companysideration of Rs.
1, Fani Bhushan Kundu.
571 of Khatian No.
The said property formed part of one holding.
The decree was made final the same year and in execution of the decree the holding was purchased in companyrt auction by Shewpujan on January 11, 1932.
2 of 1955 of the Munsif companyrt at Howrah.
307 of 1950 but was subsequently tried as Title Suit No.
Shewpujan enforced the mortgage and a preliminary decree for sale was passed in his favour on June 21, 1931.
Ultimately the applications were rejected.
The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the original plaintiff Aswini Kumar Mandal for declaration of his title and for possession.
Aswini Kumar sought to disturb Fani Bhushans possession and thereupon proceedings were started under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code.
In execution of the decree the property was sold in companyrt auction and was purchased by defendant No.
Shewpujan and Purshottam Sonar filed applications under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for setting aside the sale.
Thus when Fani Bhushan was in possession, plaintiff Aswani Kumar purported to purchase the property from Shewpujan in 1949.
The property involved is 10 Cottahs in extent recorded as plot No.
571 of Khatian No.
351 of 1945 against Purshottam Sonar for recovery of rent and obtained an ex parte decree.
Since Purushottam Sonar who was in possession, failed to pay the rent, the landlords, who were made parties to the suit, were held to be entitled to file rent suit against Purushottam Sonar and take out the plot for sale in execution of the decree against him.
Aswini Kumar Mandal purchased the holding from Shewpujan on 9 8 1949.
The other part companyprised plot No.
It would appear from the records of the case that the holding was surveyed under the Bengal Tenancy Act sometime in 1939 and so far as the present suit is companycerned plot No.
The companyrt put him in possession on December 13, 1946.
570 Khatian No.
In the meantime defendant No.
649 of Mouza Belgachia Kismat in the District of Howrah.
649 was shown to be in the possession of Purshottam Sonar.
1 Fani Bhushan found that one Hossaini Bux was in possession of about half a Cottah out of the plot.
On August 28, 1928 Purshottam Sonar mortgaged the property to a firm named Shewpujan Rai Indrashankar Rai.
Palekar, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree passed in second appeal by the High Court at Calcutta.
