1. The Court, no doubt, under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Act V of 1920, has full power to decide a question of title, but the Judge has in the present case followed the course laid down in Sub-section (3).
2. It is contended that no sufficient reasons are given for adopting this course and that evidence ought to have been given before doing so. But the Court, where it does not deem it expedient or necessary to decide any question of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1), but has reason to believe that the debtor has a saleable interest in any property, may without further inquiry sell such interest in such manner and subject to such conditions as it may think fit.
3. It appears that notice was served upon Jitendra Nath Bhattacharji, who is the appellant before us, on the 8th September 1919, He did not appear in Court until the 25th September 1920. The learned Judge put to him certain questions and the purport of the answers is mentioned in the order. Upon a consideration of the matters stated in the report of the Receiver and of the answers given by the appellant when questioned by the learned District Judge, he came to the conclusion that the debtor had saleable interest in the property.
4. At one stage of the case, it is true, the creditors wanted to have a decision on the question whether the properties were joint family properties or not; but we understand that the creditors are now willing to purchase whatever interest the insolvent had in the property.
5. In these circumstances, we do not think that we should interfere with the order of the Court below.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs - two gold mohurs to be divided among the persons who have appeared.