JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. 1. The decree-holders, who are appellants here, obtained a decree upon a compromise for payment of a certain sum of money and in default for the sale of certain properties. Amongst the properties specified as liable to sale under the decree, were a number of fields described as held by the judgment-debtor on a permanent tenure (istimrari patta). Default having been made, the appellants applied for executing of the decree, by sale of the property mentioned therein. The defendant raised certain objections in the execution Court. One of these objections was, that certain lands, the sale of which was asked for, were occupancy holdings and that the prayer for the sale of these lands was illegal. The validity of the objections was not admitted by the decree-holders. The executing Court sustained the above objection and disallowed the decree-holders' application for the sale of the land. This decision was affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The decree-holders come here in second appeal. One of the pleas raised is, that the question whether the property sought to be sold is saleable should have been raised in the original suit. In our opinion this plea is valid and must be sustained. 2. On the face of the decree, there is nothing illegal. That which is ordered to be sold is the interest of a permanent tenure-holder. By law this is a heritable and transferable interest and therefore liable to attachment and sale under a decree. The decision in Ramjanam Ram v. Rameshar Rai, [1892] 12 A.W.N., 5 is entirely in favour of the appellants. The learned Judges, who decided that case, said in their judgment, “We are of opinion that the principle which is embodied in section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies to this case and that the judgment-debtor having had in the suit, an opportunity of putting forward a defence, that the sale of the holding was prohibited by law and having failed to raise that question in the suit, the Court executing the decree cannot now entertain this objection.” With that opinion we entirely agree. Our decision in this appeal, it need scarcely be said, concerns only the parties to the appeal, and does not prejudice any right of third parties. For instance, it is not binding on the land-holder. Our decision in this appeal, it need scarcely be said, concerns only the parties to the appeal, and does not prejudice any right of third parties. For instance, it is not binding on the land-holder. We allow the appeal with costs, in this Court including fee on the higher scale. Setting aside the orders of the Court below we dismiss the objection, so far as it relates to the lands in dispute, and direct the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur to proceed with the execution according to law. The appellants will have their costs in the Lower Appellate Court and their proportionate costs in the Court of First Instance. BURKITT, J. In addition to the judgment which has just been delivered in the name of the Bench, I desire to point out to the Court executing the decree that when under section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure it sets about preparing a proclamation for sale, it is its duty under the last clause of that section to ascertain as far as possible inter alia, “every other thing which the Court consider material for the purchaser to know, in order to judge of the nature and value of the property.” If then the execution Court should have reason to believe that the property which it has been ordered to sell is an occupancy holding, it should enter that fact in clause (e) of the proclamation as a warning to an intending purchaser that he may take nothing by his purchase. 3. I have no doubt that, if that which is sold is an occupancy holding, the purchaser of it acquires, by his purchase, no interest in that holding; the purchase is not binding on the landholder and the occupancy tenant whose interest has been sold cannot by reason of section 56 of the Rent Act be ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the local Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901.