JUDGMENT 1. The true question which arises in this appeal is whether the sale in execution of the decree for rent obtained against the Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, the original tenants of the holding, is a sale which binds the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who had purchased a portion of the said holding in execution of a money-decree. If this question had been presented to us upon the finding that the landlord was not aware of the said purchase by the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. and that the landlord had not, in effect, recognised such transfer, the question would have to be answered in the affirmative; but having regard to the facts that have been noticed in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, we think there can be no doubt that the landlord was not only aware of the fact that the said Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had purchased a portion of the raiyati holding in question but had, in effect, recognised such transfer. The holding in question, though raiyati, is a permanent interest, and, as such, the provisions of sec. 17 of the Bengal Tenancy Act apply by force of sec. 18 of the same Act. Proceeding upon these sections, the Subordinate Judge has found that, when the sale at which the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made their purchase took place, notice of such sale must have been given to the landlord. In the next place, we find that, Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 having made their purchase, sold a portion of their purchased interest to one Ram Kinkar, and this individual obtained a settlement from the landlord himself in respect of the lands that he purchased. In his lease, reference is distinctly made to the purchase made by Ram Kinkar and, when the zemindar referred to this purchase in the lease, he must have, as we take it, proceeded upon the original purchase made by the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the subsequent sale made by them to Ram Kinkar. No doubt, as the learned vakil for the Appellant has pointed out to us, the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the subsequent sale made by them to Ram Kinkar. No doubt, as the learned vakil for the Appellant has pointed out to us, the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 took no steps to get their names registered in the landlord's sherista, and paid no rent since their purchase; but that does not by itself nullify the effect of the transaction to which we have just referred. We think the Subordinate Judge has given just reasons for holding that the rent decree obtained by the landlord against the Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who were the original raiyats, did not affect the interest of the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and that their interest in the land in suit did not pass to the Plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, we observe, relies upon the fact that the transfer to Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was an encumbrance which the auction-purchaser, the Plaintiff, was bound to set aside within the statutory period as prescribed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. We do not think that the Subordinate Judge was right in the view that he took in this respect, and, indeed, the learned vakil for the Respondents does not press his case on that point. 2. We desire to notice an argument founded by the learned vakil for the Appellant upon the provisions of sec. 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which is referred to in sec. 17 of the said Act, viz., that the transfer to Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 amounted to a division of the holding in question, and that such a division was not binding upon the landlord, because he, the landlord, had not given his written consent to such transaction. We do not think, however, that this argument has any application to the facts of the present case. 1, 2 and 3 amounted to a division of the holding in question, and that such a division was not binding upon the landlord, because he, the landlord, had not given his written consent to such transaction. We do not think, however, that this argument has any application to the facts of the present case. No doubt, if the transferee of a portion of a holding effects a division of the lands comprised in the holding with the transferor, such a division would not be binding upon the landlord; but if it be a permanent holding, and if, as we take it, the landlord is bound to recognise the sale of a portion thereof, the landlord, though he is not bound to recognise the division, he would be bound, it he had notice of the transfer, to bring a suit for rent both against the transferors and the transferee; in short, though he would be bound to recognise the transfer, he would not be bound to recognise the division. 3. In conclusion, we desire to observe that the present suit is one for khas possession, and there is no question raised between the parties that the Plaintiff as a purchaser is entitled to all the rights that a proprietor may have over the land in suit. His claim for khas possession must be dismissed for the reasons that we have already given. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.