JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. 1. A two biswas share of a certain village is the property in dispute in this appeal. Upon the decree-holder executing his decree and applying to have it sold, notices were issued urder section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the judgment-debtors, calling upon them to show whether the property was ancestral or not. The judgment-debtors, made no reply. The Collector of the district was asked about the land, and he reported that it was not ancestral land. Thereupon the Civil Court proceeded to sell the property, and it was brought by the appellant Behari Singh, the son of the decree-holder. When the property had been sold the judgment-debtor came forward and objected that the land was ancestral property. Inquiry was made, and the finding arrived at by the Judge was that a portion of the land was ancestral land. He accordingly set aside the sale as being one without jurisdiction. 2. In appeal it was strenuously urged by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the respondent could not go behind the order arrived at in the proceedings under section 287; they had not attempted to answer the affidavit of the decree-holder, and the finding that the land was not ancestral land was binding upon them. For the respondent the precedent of tin's Court in Sukhdeo Rai v. Skeo Ghulam, [1882] I.L.R., 4 All, 382 was put forward as being the case which covered the question before me in this appeal. The learned Vakil for the appellant tried to distinguish this last mentioned case from the present case. In Sukhdeo Rai v. Skeo Ghulam, if the facts stated in the preamble are correct, the court made its order regarding the nature of the land in the absence of the judgment-debtors, whereas in the present case the judgment-debtors had been given full opportunity of appearting. But the conclusion arrived at in Sukhdeo Rai v. Sheo Ghulam appears to me to be fatal to the present case. But the conclusion arrived at in Sukhdeo Rai v. Sheo Ghulam appears to me to be fatal to the present case. Also Rule 1 of the Rules regarding the sale of the land, published under Notification 671, dated the 21st August, 1880, lays down that every Civil Court shall ascertain from the judgment debtor whether the land to be sold, or any portion of it, is ancestral land, and after hearing the objections of the decree-holder, shall come to a decision, and if it comes to a decision that the land or any portion of the land is ancestral, shall transfer the proceedings to the Collector of the district in which the property is situate. The mistake made by the lower court in the present case was that it did not insist upon the presence of the judgment-debtor. It apparently acted upon the affidavit of the decree-holder, and contented itself with the fact that the judgment-debtors would receive notice, and it did not appear to the court that this was reversing the order laid down in the rule. The object of the rules is to prevent the sale of ancestral lands by any Court other than the Collector, and the rules contemplate and direct a full and proper inquiry, In other words, the Civil Court grasped at a jurisdiction without taking the pains to see whether it had such jurisdiction. The mere fact that the judgment-debtors property or part of it was ancestral, is per se sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The sale which followed was consequently a sale, which cannot be sustained. I dismiss the appeal, but under the circumstances, the judgment-debtors ought to have answered the notice which was served upon them and are to blame for the result which ensued. I direct that each party bear the costs of the present appeal.