1. The plaintiff-appellant as the purchaser of a non- transferable occupancy, holding at a sale held in execution of a money-decree brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, to recover possession of the holding from the defendants. The holding belonged to one Ram Manikya, and as we have said, it was purchased by the Plaintiff in execution of a money-decree on the 2lst May 1901 : but before the plaintiff took possession from Court, defendant No. 1 purchased the holding at another sale held in execution of a money-decree in September in 1902 and obtained delivery of Possession in 1903
2. It is found that the heirs of the tenant Ram Manikya had at that time left the land and even the homestead without arranging for the payment of rent, and that there was an abandonment of the holding by the heirs of the tenant. That being so, the landlord had a right to enter upon the land. He accepted rent from the defendants and treated-them as tenants and there was practically a settlement with them by the landlord. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff as the pur chaser of the interest of the tenant did not acquire any interest which could be enforced against the landlord or the tenants claiming under the landlord.
3. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the land from the defendants and that the decrees of the Courts below are right. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.