JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant held a permanent lease of some lands on which he had his huts there was a condition, however, in the lease that if he made any transfer of the lands the landlord would re-enter. The Respondent having attached this land and the huts the Appellant objected that the land was not saleable and the huts were exempt from sale as being huts occupied by an agriculturist as such. The Court of first instance upheld these objections but the lower Appellate Court repelled them holding that the condition in the lease did not prevent a compulsory sale by the Court and the huts were not occupied by an agriculturist as such. The present appeal is against that decision. It is contended that under sec. 60 of the CPC such lands only can be sold as are saleable and belong to the judgment-debtor and as the judgment debtor could not sell the lands the Court cannot sell the same. This argument is based on a misapprehension of the word "saleable" used in the section. The word evidently means saleable by auction at a compulsory sale under the orders of the Court and not transferable by act of parties. The lease in this case forbade a sale by the tenant, but did not prevent a sale by the Court. This view is in accord with the opinion expressed in the case of Golaknath v. Mathuranath ILR 20 Cal. 273 (1891) and we have no reason to differ from the same. The landlord might perhaps have imposed on the holding an immunity from Court-sales as was done in the case of Vyankatraya v. Shiv rambhat ILR 7 Bom. 256 (1883), but he did not and the tenant has no right to complain. The first ground therefore fails. 2. The reasoning upon which the learned District Judge holds that the Appellant is not an agriculturist may not be sound and is, certainly open to criticism, but it is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere. The appeal therefore must be dismissed and we dismiss it with costs one gold mohurs.