JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. and Mitra, J. - The Petitioners' holding was sold in execution of an ex parte decree for rent obtained by the landlord in a suit laid at a sum below Rs. 50 before a Munsif who was empowered to exercise final jurisdiction under cl. (b) of sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and purchased by the decree-holder himself. They applied under secs. 244 and 311, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity and fraud. The sale was set aside by the Munsif. On appeal before the Subordinate Judge, the Petitioners took a preliminary objection under sec. 153 that no appeal lay. The objection having been overruled and the decree of the Munsif reversed on the merits, the Petitioners obtained the above rule on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the case of Monmohini v. Lukhi Narayan ILR 28 Cal. 116 (1900) was relied on. Their Lordships, the Chief Justice and Mitra, J., dissenting from the view taken in that case, referred the case to a Full Bench. The Order of Referencewas as follows:-- The holding of the Defendants, the Petitioners in this Court, was sold in execution of a decree for rent obtained by the opposite party. The suit was laid at a sum below Rs. 50; it was undefended, and the decree was passed by a Munsif who was empowered to exercise final jurisdiction under cl. (b) of sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Petitioners applied under sec. 244 of the CPC to have the sale set aside on the ground of fraud. The Munsif acceded to their prayer and the sale was set aside. The decree-holder who was himself the purchaser appealed against the order. The appeal came on for hearing before the Subordinate Judge who on a preliminary objection under sec. 153 held, for reasons contained in his judgment, that he was competent to entertain the appeal. On the merits the Subordinate Judge decreed the appeal and confirmed the sale. The present application raises the question of the jurisdiction as to appeal to the lower Appellate Court. It is conceded that the Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that the Munsif was not vested with the power contemplated by cl. (b) of sec. 153. On the merits the Subordinate Judge decreed the appeal and confirmed the sale. The present application raises the question of the jurisdiction as to appeal to the lower Appellate Court. It is conceded that the Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that the Munsif was not vested with the power contemplated by cl. (b) of sec. 153. The decree in the suit did not decide any question relating to title to land or any interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto or any other question referred to in the proviso to sec. 153, but it seems to us that a proceeding to set aside a sale distinctly raises a question as to an interest in land, and the order of a Munsif adjudicating on that question is an order excepted from the prohibition as to appeals. "This was the view taken in Ganga Charan Bhattacharjya v. Sashi Bhusan Roy 1 C.L.J. 255 : s.c. foot-note (1905) and in an unreported case decided by this Bench (Appeal from Order No. 311 of 1904, decided on the 31st.