Kulwant Sahay, J.This is an appeal by the defendants 1st party. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to certain land for recovery of possesssion. The plaintiffs were tenants of a certain holding with the defendant 3rd party, under the defendants 2nd and 4th party, who were the landlords. The defendants 2nd party, instituted a suit for their share of the rent against the defendant 3rd party who was one of the tenants of the holding, and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree the holding was sold and purchased by the defendants 2nd party. Delivery of possession was given to them by Court on the 20th of May 1918.

2. Thereafter, by a deed of sale, dated the 24th of January 1921, the defendants 2nd party sold the land purchased by them to the defendants 1st party. The plaintiffs alleged dispossession in March 1921. Their case is that the decree obtained by the defendants 2nd party was not a rent-decree but a money-decree, and what passed by the sale was only the right, title and interest of the defendant 3rd party. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the ground that it was barred by special limitation prescribed by Article 3, Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the limitation prescribed by Article 3, Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to the facts of the present case, and he decreed the suit.

3. The only contention raised in this appeal is the question as to whether Article 3, Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act inapplicable to the present case. There has been a conflict of judicial decisions-on this point in the Calcutta High Court. In Kamal Dhari Thakur v. Rameshwar Singh 17 C.W.N. 817 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that dispossession effected by the act of delivery of; possession by Court is not dispossession by the landlord within the meaning of Article 3 of Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act. A different view was taken by a different Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Satis Chandra Basu v. Nrittya Gopal Haldar 21 C.W.N. 978, where it was held that the dispossession caused by a sale in execution of a rent-decree by the purchaser who was the landlord was a dispossession within the meaning of Article 3 Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act.

4. In my opinion the decision in Kamal Dhari Thakur v. Rameshwar 17 C.W.N. 817 appears to be the correct view to take of Article 3 of Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act. Dispossession in execution of a writ for delivery of possession issued by a civil Court cannot be said to be a dispossession by the landlord. The dispossession in such cases is effected by the Court and not by the landlord, and for the reason given in Kamal Dhari Thakurs case 17 C.W.N. 817. Article 3 of Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to a dispossession under a writ for delivery of possession issued by a civil Court. The finding in the present case is that the plaintiffs were dispossessed by delivery of possession on the 20th of May 1918, and not in March 1921, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

5. Although the decree passed in the suit of the defendants 2nd party was a money-decree, it was treated as a rent-decree, and execution was taken as an execution of a rent-decree and possession was delivered of the entire holding to the auction-purchaser. If in execution of the decree only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor was sought to be delivered to the purchaser and after taking possession of the holding which represented the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, the purchaser subsequently dispossessed the plaintiffs, then in that case Article 3 of Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act would have applied. But as according to the finding the dispossession of the plaintiffs took place from the entire holding in execution of the writ for delivery of possession, Article 3 of Schedule Ill to the Bengal Tenancy Act has no application. I am of opinion that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. This view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in an un-reported case: Lalita Prasad Chaudhry v. C.G. Pal Second Appeal No. 1378 of 1922.

6. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

Ross, J.

I agree.