M.C. Ghose, J.
1. In this case the landlord obtained a rent decree on 16th November 1932 against a great many tenants. Thereafter on 30th May 1933 opposite party 1, purchased the right, title and interest of one of the judgment-debtors, Indra Narain Manna, in a Court sale. Thereafter, opposite party 1 applied to the Court Under Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act, to deposit the whole of the decretal amount and hold the tenanted land as a mortgagee in possession. The Court allowed the petition.
2. It is urged in this Court among other grounds that opposite party 1 who purchased in a Court sale the right, title and interest of one of the judgment-debtors Indra, Narain Manna, could have no better right than the said Indra Narain who was one of the judgment-debtors in the suit. The position of opposite party 1, in my opinion, is no better than that of the judgment, debtor and the question is whether one of the judgment-debtors can deposit money and get the advantage of Section 171. The judgment-debtor may deposit the money Under Section 170 and by doing so he can prevent the sale. Section 170 states:
The judgment-debtor or any person whose interests are affected by the sale may pay money into Court under this section.
3. Section 171 provides:
When any person whose interests have been affected by the sale pays into Court the amount requisite to prevent the sale he will get all the advantages enumerated in the section.
4. From reading the two Sub-section 170 and 171 it would appear that the expression 'any person whose interests have been affected by the sale' does not include the judgment-debtors or one of the judgment-debtors. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Asutosh Ghose v. Abinash Chandra, (1911) 11 IC 501. As opposite party 1 was the successor in interest of one of judgment-debtors he is not entitled to the privileges of Section 171.
5. The rule is made absolute. Having regard to the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs in this Court.