JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised in this rule is, whether the opposite party, who is the purchaser of a share of what has been found, or assumed to be, an occupancy holding, transferable by custom, could apply, under sec. 310A, C.P.C., as being a person whose immoveable property had been sold in execution of a decree which was in this instance a decree for arrears of rent due in respect of the holding. That sec. 310A applies to sales of holdings in execution of decrees for arrears of rent has been decided in the case of Janardhan Ganguli v. Kali Kristo Thakur ILR 23 Cal. 393 (1895) and the point is not disputed; but the learned vakil for the Appellants contends that, as the purchaser of a share of the holding, the opposite party, who was the Appellant in the Court below, had no locus standi because he acquired no interest in the holding by his purchase ; and in support of this contention, the case of Kuldip Singh v. Gillanders Arbuthnot ILR 26 Cal. 615 (1899) is relied upon. If that case had been directly in point, the question whether we should not have had to refer the matter to a Full Bench would have arisen. But it is not in our opinion, directly in point, as the present case is distinguishable from that case. There the purchaser of a share of an occupancy holding sued the landlord, who had dispossessed him for recovery of possession, and the question arose whether, as against the landlord, the Plaintiff had acquired any right to recover possession. Here the purchaser of a share of the holding applies under sec. 310A, C.P.C., to have the execution sale set aside on payment to the decree-holder, the landlord, of the amount of his decree, and to the purchaser, of the statutory compensation. No doubt he claims to be a person whose immoveable property has been sold; but can it be said that he had no interest in the immoveable property which has been sold, simply because sec, 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act makes sub-division of a holding not binding on a landlord unless it is made with his consent in writing ? This question must be answered in the negative at least for the purposes of a case like the present, where the landlord is not called upon to recognize a subdivision and where the purchaser of the share of the holding claims no such recognition. 2. That being so, we think that the order of the Court below is correct and that this rule must be discharged with costs, one gold mohur.