JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - The Defendant, Sheikh Burullah, owned a non-transferable occupancy holding which was sold in execution of a decree against him, and one Kashi Nath was the purchaser. Kashi Nath transferred his right to the present Plaintiff who instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of possession against the Defendant, who is still in occupation. The question discussed before me refers to the effect of the Defendant not objecting to the attachment and sale during the pendency of the execution proceedings on the ground of the holding being non-transferable by custom or local usage. 2. There can be no doubt upon the authorities that the Defendant could under sec. 244, 0. P. C., object to the attachment and sale on the ground that he had no saleable interest in the holding, Bastiram v. Fattu I. L. R. 8 All. 146 (1886), Gahar Khalipa Bipari v. Kasimuddi Jamadar I. L. R. 27 Cal. 415 (1889), and it may seem doubtful whether the Defendant may afterwards object to the delivery of possession to the purchaser after confirmation of the sale. In Bhiram Ali Shaik v. Gopi Kanth Saha ILR 24 Cal. 355 (1897), it was, however, held by Banerjee and Rampini, JJ., that the Defendant could resist a purchaser on the ground that the holding sold was non-transferable notwithstanding that the Defendant did not object to the attachment and sale which he could under sec. 244, C. P. C. In that case no question was raised as to the effect of the knowledge of the Defendant of the execution proceedings leading to the sale. In Durga Charan Mondal v. Kali Prosanna Sircar 3 C.W.N. 586; s.c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899), the learned Judges (and Banerjee, J., was one of them) held that if the judgment-debtors were aware of the order for sale and did not object to it, they would be precluded from questioning the propriety of the order and consequently of the sale that took place under that order. The attention of the Court was drawn to the case of Bhiram Ali Shaik Shikdar v. Gopi Kanth Saha ILR 24 Cal. 355 (1897), but the learned Judges still thought that if the judgment debtor had knowledge of the proceedings it was not open to them to question the propriety of the sale. 3. The attention of the Court was drawn to the case of Bhiram Ali Shaik Shikdar v. Gopi Kanth Saha ILR 24 Cal. 355 (1897), but the learned Judges still thought that if the judgment debtor had knowledge of the proceedings it was not open to them to question the propriety of the sale. 3. In Ananda Das v. Ratnakar Panda 7 C. W. N. 572(1893), Ghose and Pratt, JJ., held that a sale in execution of a money-decree of an occupancy holding not transferable by local custom or usage is valid, if the sale is held with the consent of the landlord. A sale of a non-transferable right of occupancy is not, therefore, ipso facto void. 4. In the present case the Munsif found that the Defendant was aware of the sale and did apply for adjournment and that it was once adjourned at his instance. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Defendant had knowledge of the execution proceedings. He did not object to the sale and was, therefore, incompetent to resist the purchaser after confirmation of the sale. As between the purchaser and himself the title to the property vested in the purchaser on the confirmation of sale. Following therefore the ruling in Durga Charan Mondal v. Kali Prosanna Sarcar 3 C. W. N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899), I decree the appeal and set aside the decrees of the Courts below, and direct that the Plaintiff be put in possession of the property in suit, and that the Defendant do pay his costs in all the Courts. 5. There is no distinct finding in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as to the knowledge of the Defendant of the execution proceedings but it is unnecessary to remand the case for the purpose of a finding on the point, as there can be no doubt, as is found by the Munsif that the Defendant had full knowledge of the proceedings, neither have I been asked to remand the case for the purpose. Maclean, C.J. 6. I think that Mr. Justice Mitra in following the decision of Mr. Justice Ghose and Mr. Justice Banerjee in the case reported in Durga Charan Mondal v. Kali Prosanna Sircar 3 C.W.N. 586: s.c. ILR 26 Cal. 727 (1899) took a right view of the law, and his decision must be upheld. Maclean, C.J. 6. I think that Mr. Justice Mitra in following the decision of Mr. Justice Ghose and Mr. Justice Banerjee in the case reported in Durga Charan Mondal v. Kali Prosanna Sircar 3 C.W.N. 586: s.c. ILR 26 Cal. 727 (1899) took a right view of the law, and his decision must be upheld. The appeal therefore must be dismissed with costs. Pargiter, J. I agree.