JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J.:— This is a suit to recover possession of a grove. The lower court decreed the plaintiff's claim. The plot formed part of the occupancy holding of one Sarju. Surju's wife obtained a decree against Sarju for maintenance. In execution of this decree she sold and purchased herself the plot now in dispute. She got formal possession on 7th February 1903, and on 31st March 1903, she sold to the defendant Madan Lal. Sarju then relinquished his holding to the plaintiff, his landlord. Madan Lal now defends the suit upon the strength of the sale-deed made in his favour by Musammat Mahadei, the wife of Surju. 2. I am quite satisfied that the property in dispute was part of the occupancy holding of Sarju. Section 20 of Act II of 1901 expressly provides that the interest of an occupancy tenant shall not be transferable in execution of a decree of a civil court It is as clear as can be that the policy of the law is that these occupancy holdings shall not be dealt with contrary to the pro visions of the Act. To do so is illegal. I am quite satisfied that the purchase by Mussmmat Mahadei and the sale by her to the defendant was merely an attempt to get over the clear provisions of the Act. I should be very sorry if I found it necessary to arrive at a decision different from that of the learned District Judge. It is in my opinion of the utmost importance that these holdings should not be subject to prolonged litigation arising out of all kinds of complicated dealings. It is argued that Sarju had no right to relinquish his holding so as to defeat the defen dant's claim. In my judgment neither Sarju's wife nor the defendant acquired any right to the land. The Act renders it illegal to sell an occupaney holding in execution of a decree. The statute 24 and 25 Vict, ch. 154 prohibited, in language not a bit stronger, certain assignments and sub-lettings by tenants of land in Ireland. It was held that assignments and sub-lettings contrary to the provisions of this statute were absolutely void and a tenant after assigning or sub-letting was permitted to repudiate his own deed and eject his own sub-lessee. See Jagoe v. Harrington, 10 L.R. Ireland 335., Donoughmore v. Forest, Ir. R. 5 Com. It was held that assignments and sub-lettings contrary to the provisions of this statute were absolutely void and a tenant after assigning or sub-letting was permitted to repudiate his own deed and eject his own sub-lessee. See Jagoe v. Harrington, 10 L.R. Ireland 335., Donoughmore v. Forest, Ir. R. 5 Com. L. 443.. (Exchequer Chamber), Gilman v. Murphy, Ir. R. 6 Com. L. 34.. The learned Judge in a clear and able judgment has dealt with every matter which, in my opinion, required to be dealt with. I entirely concur in his judgment and dismiss the appeal.