The purchase by a pleader of the decree-holder is voidable, not a nullity, under O. 21, R. 73 of the Code.

DAS, J. :- This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March 1945 passed by Mr. P.P.I. Vaidyanathan, learned District Judge, Malda, affirming on appeal the judgment and decree dated 17th November 1944 passed by Mr. S.C. Chakravarty, learned Subordinate Judge, Malda decreeing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The plaintiffs case was that the disputed property appertained to 2 jamas held by the defendants under Sadek Reja. The latter instituted a suit for rent and recovered a decree. In execution of the decree, the property was put up to sale and was purchased by Charu Chandra Sarkar, pleader of the decree-holder on 26th March 1940. The judgment-debtors application for setting aside the sale failed. The auction purchaser Charu Chandra Sarkar took possession through Court on 31st December 1940 and later sold the property to the plaintiff on 16th December 1942. The plaintiff having failed to get possession, instituted the present suit for declaration of title and for possession.

3. Defendant 2 who contested the suit, pleaded that the plaintiffs vendor did not acquire any title by his auction purchase in view of the provisions of O. 21, R. 73, Civil P.C.

4. Both the Courts below overruled the defence and decreed the plaintiffs suit. Defendant 2 has preferred this appeal.

5. Mr. Bakshi appearing on his behalf, has reiterated the ground taken in the Courts below and has contended that the prohibition contained in O. 21, R. 73, Civil P.C. hereinafter called the Code, applies to a pleader of the decree-holder and makes the sale a nullity.

6. I may point out at the outset that no case of fraud on the part of the decree-holder has been proved in this case.

7. The validity of the contention depends on the interpretation of O. 21, R. 73 of the Code, which runs as follows :

No officer or other person having any duty to perform in connection with any sale, shall, either directly or indirectly, bid for, acquire, or attempt to acquire any interest in the property sold.

8. The corresponding S. 292 of the Code of 1882 did not contain the words other person.

9. The old S. 292 was construed in the case of Alagiri Sami v. Ramnathan, 10 Mad 111, to exclude a Vakil, on the ground that a Vakil cannot be regarded as an officer having any duty to perform in connection with the sale.

10. As a legal practitioner is an officer of the Court only in a limited erase, the view taken in the Madras case may be supported on that ground.

11. The further question viz., whether it pleader has any duty to perform in connection with the sale, has to be carefully considered bearing in mind the principle underlying the section and the intention of the legislation.

12. In the Transfer of Property Act which was also enacted in 1882, we find in S. 136, an express prohibition as regards legal practitioners baying or trafficking in actionable claims.

13. The principle underlying both the sections is that persons contemplated therein should not be even exposed to the suspicion that in the discharge of their duties, their conduct might be influenced by any personsl consideration.

14. In construing any Act of the Legislature the verbal construction of the particular section in question, if it be plain and simple, must govern the Court in arriving at its conclusion. If there be any doubt or difficulty in the wording of the particular section in question an enquiry is permissible into the history of the enactment and any supposed defect in the former legislation on the subject which it wanted to cure : Quean v. Bishop of London, (1889) 24 QBD 213 at pp. 224, 225.

15. I now proceed to construe the section bearing in mind the principle underlying the section and the above rule of construction.

16. The main question is whether a pleader is a person who has any duty to perform in connection with the sale. These words were construed in Shiam Lal v. Girraj Kishore, 49 All 292 : (AIR (14) 1927 All 76), to be intended to prohibit all those pa