JUDGMENT Rampini, J. - This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Highly dated the 30th August 1905. The facts of the case are as follows: An execution creditor, who had obtained a money-decree, proceeded to sell the occupancy holding of his judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor objected that his occupancy holding could not be sold in execution of a money-decree; and this was found in his favour by the first Court, it having been held by the Munsif that the occupancy holding was of a nontransferable nature and that there was no custom or usage as to its transferability. 2. On appeal to the District Judge, the District Judge reversed the finding of the Munsif and held that there was evidence as to the custom of transferability of occupancy holdings in the locality; and he has therefore given effect to the decree-holder's petition and declared that the occupancy holding had been validly sold. 3. The judgment-debtor now appeals to this Court; and the learned pleader who appears on his behalf contends that there is absolutely no evidence on the record which justifies the finding at which the District Judge has arrived. 4. This is a second appeal; and as a genera! rule in second appeals we are concluded by findings of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court. But in this case it is alleged, as already observed, by the pleader for the Appellant that there is no evidence to justify the finding to which the District Judge has come. he has laid the evidence in the case before us; and it certainly seems to me that there is no such evidence as would justify the finding of the District Judge that in the locality occupancy holdings are transferable by custom. There is no evidence of such custom. There is, no doubt, evidence that occupancy holdings are sold in the locality in question. Eight koalas have also been put in by the decree-holder, which relate to transfers of occupancy holdings. Some of these koalas have reference to the sales of occupancy holdings in the village in which the judgment-debtor's holding is situate, others relate to sales not in the village of the judgment-debtor, but to transfers of such holdings in neighboring villages. Eight koalas have also been put in by the decree-holder, which relate to transfers of occupancy holdings. Some of these koalas have reference to the sales of occupancy holdings in the village in which the judgment-debtor's holding is situate, others relate to sales not in the village of the judgment-debtor, but to transfers of such holdings in neighboring villages. Now, it seems to me that upon such evidence the learned District Judge was not justified in his finding as, to the custom of transferring occupancy holdings; and by custom of transferring holdings I mean a custom of transferring them against the will or without the consent of the landlord. It is such a custom as this which it is necessary to prove in cases in which a custom of transferability is in dispute. This has been laid down in the case of Jagun proshad v. posun Suhoo 8 C. W. N. 172 (1903) in which it has been said that the essence of a usage of transferability is that transfers made to the knowledge of but without the consent of the landlord, are valid and must be recognized by him. Now, there is no evidence of such a custom in the present case. There is evidence of transfers, but whether accepted by the landlord or not, or whether accepted by him after payment of a fee or not, is not disclosed in the evidence The learned pleader for the Respondent, however, raises a very old plea, namely, that although occupancy holdings are not transferable against the will of the landlord, they are transferable as between judgment-debtor and decree-holder. But it is sufficient to say that in a long series of cases, beginning with the case of Duarka, Nath Misscr v. Hurrixh Chunder I. L. R. 4 Cal. 925 (1879) it has been held that when occupancy rights are not transferable by custom, the person who purchases them in execution of a money-decree purchases nothing. It is unnecessary to mention in detail all the cases in which this has been held and in which the case of Duarkanath v. Hurrish chunder I. L. R. 4 Cal. 925 (1879). has been followed. But I may point out that this rule has been adhered to in the case of Bhirnmali Slunk Shikdar v. Gapi Kanth al. It is unnecessary to mention in detail all the cases in which this has been held and in which the case of Duarkanath v. Hurrish chunder I. L. R. 4 Cal. 925 (1879). has been followed. But I may point out that this rule has been adhered to in the case of Bhirnmali Slunk Shikdar v. Gapi Kanth al. 355 (1897)I. L. R. 24 C. and in the case of Dunja Charan Mandal v. Kali prasanna Surkar I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899). 5. The pleader for the Respondent has cited the case of Maharaja Badha Kishore Manikya v. Ananda Priya 8 C. W. N. 235 (1903) in which it has been held that upon the facts found, it might be found that a rayed is entitled to sell his holding without reference to the landlord, provided only that the purchaser pays to the landlord a customary fee. Now, it is unnecessary for me to say anything more than this that such custom has not been set up in this case and there is no evidence of it. 6. In conclusion, I would say that this case seems to me to be on ail fours with the case of Majed Hossein v. Raghu bar (choudhary (6) in which when an application was made to execute a decree for money by attachment and sale of an occupancy holding, the judgment-debtor was held to be entitled under sec. 244, C. P. C, to raise the question as to whether the holding was saleable according to custom or usage and to have that question determined by the Court executing the decree. That is exactly the state of things in the present case; and although the District Judge has held that the occupancy rights were transferable by custom, it appears to me that this finding cannot be sustained upon the evidence adduced by the parties. I would therefore set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif. I would also allow the Appellant his costs. Woodroffe, J. I Agree.