1. This Rule must be discharged. The present petitioner, the decree-holder, obtained the Rule calling upon the opposite party who were the transferees or partial transferees of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The landlord had obtained a rent decree against the tenant. The unrecognised transferees of this nontransferable occupancy holding have been permitted by the learned Judge to make a deposit of the decretal amount under the provisions of Section 171, Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner obtained this Rule on the ground that the opposite party have no interest in the holding voidable on the proposed sale in execution. This matter has formed the subject of judicial decision in earlier cases. There are two decisions that are clearly in favour of the opposite party to the Rule. These decisions are, first, the case of Tarak Das Pal v. Harish Chandra Banerjee 16 Ind. Cas. 977 : 17 C.W.N. 163 : 16 C.L.J. 548. It is a decision of Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ., and, in my opinion, it decides the point in question. The other decision which is on all fours is the case of Ahmadullah Chowdhury v. Harkant Saha 27 Ind. Cas. 176 : 20 C.W.N. 39 22 C.L.J. 106. This also adopts the same view. Only one decision has been cited on the other side and that is the decision in the case of Nalini Behari v. Fulmani Basi 13 Ind. Cas. 487 : 16 C.W.N. 421 : 15 C.L.J 388. No doubt that took the opposite view, but there cannot be any doubt having regard to the decisions that I have cited that that case stands alone and is opposed to the cursus curis of the Court on this matter. There seems to be not only the two decisions that have been cited but these two, cases have been followed and adhered to on an application for review where the Court has refused to set aside the previous order on the grounds mentioned in the decisions of Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ., and Chatterjee and Walmsley, JJ. In that view the present Rule must stand discharged with costs one gold mohur.
2. I agree.