JUDGMENT Brett, J. - The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the landlords, Plaintiffs, to recover Khas possession of a certain holding which originally belonged to Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that the holding was one in which they had rights of occupancy but which was not transferable and that Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had sold the holding to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and had relinquished possession of the holding to them. Both the lower Courts have held that the holding was a non-transferable holding, that Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sold it to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and afterwards abandoned the holding and that therefore the landlords were entitled to recover khas possession. They accordingly decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. 2. Defendants have appealed to this Court and in support of the appeal two points have been taken, first, that the holding was not one in which Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had occupancy rights only, but was one which they held at a fixed rent and therefore it was transferable; secondly, that even if the holding was a non-transferable holding in which the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had occupancy rights still those Defendants had not abandoned it because they remained in occupation of the homestead lands and therefore the Plaintiffs were not entitled to khas possession at all events against Defendants Nos. 3 and 4. 3. The first point does not appear to us to arise on the findings of the lower Courts. 4. In support of the case for Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 that the holding was one at a fixed rent they relied on certain dahlias. The Court of first instance found that these dahlias were not genuine and the Court of Appeal seems to have accepted that finding though the Judge goes on to say that even if the receipts were true, the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 would not be entitled to a finding in their favour based on these receipts, because the present suit being not a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act the provisions of sec. 50, cl. 2 would not apply. 5. As to the second point we think that it is concluded by the findings of the lower Court. It appears that after the sale by Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to Defendants Nos. 50, cl. 2 would not apply. 5. As to the second point we think that it is concluded by the findings of the lower Court. It appears that after the sale by Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the Plaintiffs brought a suit against Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 for rent and that Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in their defiance alleged that they had sold the entire jamb to Defendant No. 1 and that they, Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, had given up possession to him. The suit was in consequence withdrawn. We think that after that defiance set up in the rent suit brought against them it is not now open to the Defendants to deny that they had parted with the possession of the holding. It seems, as the lower Court remarks, that since the sale the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have been allowed to remain on the homestead lands with the permission of the purchasers but such permissive occupation of the homestead lands unaccompanied by cultivation or possession of the colorable lands, would not be sufficient to indicate that the Defendants had not abandoned their holding or to save them from the consequences of such abandonment. We have been referred to several cases in which it has been laid down by this Court that where after a sale of a holding with a right of occupancy to a third party the tenant remains in possession, even though he is in possession as under-tenant of the vendee, still the landlord is not entitled to recover khas possession as against him. But the present case is clearly distinguishable from these cases because the tenants, Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, have been found to have given up to the purchaser possession of all the colorable lands of the holding and to have remained in possession of the homestead land only by permission of the purchaser. The two points urged in support of the appeal fail and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.