In the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, the Plaintiffs were fractional owners of a share in a taluk, and the 1st Defendant who is the Appellant now before us had a holding in that taluk. It was the Plaintiffs' case that out of that holding the Defendant No. 1 sold 3 kanis of land to them and their predecessors, and that they held possession of that land until they were dispossessed by the Defendants. They accordingly sued for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession, each Plaintiff bringing a separate suit in respect of a portion of the land alleged to be held separately by him.
The suits were dismissed by the Court of first instance, but were decreed by the lower Appellate Court.
It is now contended before us on second appeal that the decrees passed by the lower Appellate Court were erroneous, because the sale set up by the Plaintiffs was bad on two grounds, namely, first, because it was not made in accordance with the provisions of the 3rd paragraph of sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, inasmuch as the transfer was not effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property sold, and, secondly, that the sale was bad because the holding was not transferable by custom under the Bengal Tenancy Act.
As regards the first of these contentions, it is clearly found by the lower Appellate Court that the Plaintiffs did in fact get possession of the land in dispute and enjoyed it for some years until they were dispossessed by the Defendants. That is a finding of fact by which we are bound.
On the second point we think that the Defendant is estopped from setting up the invalidity of the sale by him. Reference has been made for the Appellant to certain reported cases all of which are distinguishable from the present one. The first is the case of Bhiramali Shaik Shikdar v. Gopi Kanth Shaha(1). That case appears to us to have no bearing at all on the question at issue, because it was a case of a purchase at an execution sale. The next is the case of Dwarka Nath Miner v. Hurrish Chunder(2). That case again has nothing in common with the present case, being a suit by a landlord against the purchasers of a holding. The case of Majed Houein v. Raghuber Chowdhury(3) is also not in point. That was a case in which an occupancy right was attached in execution of a decree, and an objection was preferred by the judgment-debtor that it was not liable to attachment because it was not transferable. The case of Kabil Sardar v. Chunder Nath Nag Chowdhry(4) is also not in point. That was a suit by a landlord to eject the transferror of a portion of a holding and his transferree, on the ground that the transferror had forfeited his right by transferring a part of his holding. It seems to us that it would be altogether against the rules of equity and good conscience to permit a man who has sold property to another to contend in his own interest (and not in a representative character) that the sale was invalid because he had no right to sell that property. We may refer to the remarks of Chief Justice Garth in the case of The Ganges Manufacturing Company v. Souraj Mull(5).
We think that there is no ground for the appeal, and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.
This judgment will also govern appeals Nos. 1789 and 1790 of 1898, which are likewise dismissed with costs.
S.C.S
Appeal dismissed.