1. In these three appeals the only question for our consideration is whether by virtue of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Ben. Tea. Act, as amended in 1907, a cosharer landlord, who has purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding in execution of a decree for the rent of his share, is entitled to retain exclusive possession as against his cosharer landlords. In the appeal reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision reported as Ram Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu (1) and also upon the language of S. 22(2). Now clearly the case reported as Ram Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu does not affect the present question, for in that case the holding in question was a transferable and not a non-transferable occupancy holding. The result is that Full Bench case in no way affects or impairs the authority of the prior decision reported as Girish Chandra Chowdhry v. Kedar Chandri (2). This has already been pointed out in the later case of Lakhi Kant Das v. Balabhadra Prosad Das (3). There it has been clearly held that S. 22(2) applies only to a case in which a transferable occupancy holding is the subject-matter of the purchase. Here, as we have said, the holding is a non-transferable holding, and we may point out that in so far as the question whether S. 22(2) applies only to transferable or both to transferable and non-transferable holdings, the language of the section has not been altered by the amendment made in 1907. In our view also the Full Bench decision in the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy (4), in so far as it specifies the cases in which the transfers of holdings are operative against the landlord, in fact, supports the case for the plaintiffs cosharers.
2. In this view and on the authority of the cases we have cited. Appeal No. 270 is dismissed and Appeals Nos. 2303 and 2878 are decreed with costs in each case.
V.B/R.K
3. Order accordingly.