Judgement

Appeal (No. 99 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (January 17, 1929) reversing a decree of the additional Subordinate Judge at Palamau (December 17, 1928).

The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents claiming an injunction against the appellant restraining him from recovering possession of mauza Maran from them. The appellant having brought a suit in 1919 for arrears of rent of a tenure which included the village, obtained a rent decree, and the tenure was subsequently sold in execution under the Bengal Rent Recovery Act (VIII. of 1865) and purchased by the appellant. Objection had been raised that the decree, in execution of which the sale had taken place, was not a rent decree within s. 208 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and that the sale was invalid. The Board of Revenue (upon appeal) dismissed the objection. The question for determination in the appeal was whether the sale was valid and whether the suit challenging its validity could be entertained by the Civil Court.

The facts and the material statutory provisions appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge held that the sale was valid and accordingly dismissed the suit.