The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of Cases Articles and Other Matters February 16 & March 1918

* * * Even in a case where the decree-holder obtains the consent of the landlord to the attachment and sale of the holding but the judgmendebtor (the raiyat) objects thereto on the ground that it is not transferable their Lordships have been pleased to point out that : `as the raiyat cannot confer a title upon the purchaser without the consent of the landlord so the landlord alone by his ow [...] Further it follows from the Full Bench decision (2) that after the sale has been held if the raiyat having no knowledge thereof (or of the proceedings leading thereto) applies to have the sale set aside the sale cannot be confirmed even though the decree-holder or the auctiopurchaser obtains the landlord's consent prior to the sale or secures a recognition of the purchase from him subsequen [...] If he consents to the transfer made by the tenant there is an end of the matter." "The tenant in this case is the judgmendebtor ; he is bound to pay his debt ; and if the landlord who is the only other party interested in impugning the validity of the sale of the holding in the occupancy of the tenant consent to it there is no reason why it should be open to the tenant to object to the sal [...] Thus in a case in which the co-sharer landlords to the extent of a r5 annas share consented to the sale the High Court maintained an order passed by the Court below granting the decree-holder's application for sale of an occpancy holding to the extent of that share observing that the noconsenting landlords may give their consent after the sale. [...] But where the raiyat with full knowledge of the execution proceedings and the sale had failed to raise the objection at the time of the sale that the holding was not transferable and the question was raised after the sale had been confirmed and after the purchase had been reconised by the landlord it was held that the sale was valid.