JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage bond. The Subordinate Judge has held the Plaintiff entitled to enforce his mortgage lien against inter alia property No. 5 which is an occupancy holding of 12 big has in Khangarpore in the possession of the Defendants 16 to 18. The Defendants 16 to 18 are the Appellants, They purchased the occupancy-holding at a sale held in execution of a money-decree obtained by them against the former tenant Anandi Lal, the Defendant No. 1. This purchase of theirs took place on the 17th December 1902. The landlord of the holding had, how ever, obtained a rent decree, dated 28th February 1901, in respect of the 16 as share of the rent for the years 1304 to 1307 (1897 to 1900). He executed his decree, put up the holding to sale and the Defendants 16 to 18 again purchased it on the 9th December 1903. They obtained delivery of possession on the 2nd April 1904. They then on the 11th June 1904 applied to the Collector for the issue of a notice annulling the Plaintiffs' mortgage which constituted an in-cumbrance on the holding. The notice was served on the 29th June 1904. Hence, they contend, the incumbrance at the Plaintiffs' mortgage lien on the holding, was annulled. 2. The Subordinate Judge has, however, held that the conduct of the Defendants 16 to 18 was fraudulent, inasmuch as they well knew of the Plaintiffs' mortgage, when they purchased the holding on the 9th December 1903, and that they should have paid off the landlord's decree for rent and not allowed the holding to be sold. 3. The Defendants 16 to 18 urge in appeal that the learned Sub-Judge is in error on this point. The property was an occupancy-holding. Hence, under sec. 166, Bengal Tenancy Act, the property was sold to the Appellants with power to annul incumbrances, and that when they took steps to annul the incumbrance through the Collector, they were guilty of no fraud but only exercised a statutory right. We consider this plea to be well-founded. 4. The property was an occupancy-holding. Hence, under sec. 166, Bengal Tenancy Act, the property was sold to the Appellants with power to annul incumbrances, and that when they took steps to annul the incumbrance through the Collector, they were guilty of no fraud but only exercised a statutory right. We consider this plea to be well-founded. 4. The learned pleader for the Respondents urges that as the Appellants bad purchased the holding in execution of their own money decree, they were the representatives of the old tenant Anandi Lal, and were bound to pay up the decree obtained by the landlord against Anandi Lal, and BO allow the Plaintiffs' mortgage lien on the holding to subsist We are unable to see that the Defendants 16 to 18 were under any obligation to act in this way. We do not know if they had been recognised as tenants by the landlord. In any case, they were not responsible for the rent for the years 1304 to 1307 (1897 to 1900) as they only purchased the holding in 1902. The holding was liable for the back rents, and they accordingly, if they wished to keep the holding, had to satisfy the landlord's decree for rent, and they did so by buying the holding again at the sale held in execution of the landlord's decree. In subsequently annulling the Plaintiffs' mortgage under the provisions of sec. 167, they only exercised a statutory right, which can never be an equitable wrong or fraudulent conduct on their part. We, therefore, consider that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is wrong on this point and we accordingly decree this appeal with costs. Hearing fee 3 gold mohurs.