JUDGMENT Pal, J. - This appeal is by the Defendants in a suit for khas possession of the disputed land on declaration of Plaintiff's title thereto. The facts that are now admitted are:- 1. There was a raiyati holding belonging to one Kanai Sikdar and others at an annual rental of Rs. 50. 2. This holding was under Taluk Ramlochan Das which belonged to three sets of co-sharers, viz., Plaintiff No. 1 having 1|3 share, Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 14 having another 1|3 share and the Babus of Basanda having the remaining 1|3 share. 3. In 1932 a suit was instituted by the present Plaintiffs for arrears of rent of the raiyati holding for the period from 1335 to 1338 B.S. for their 2|3 share of the rent, making Basanda Babus pro forma Defendants. This was rent suit No. 1768 of 1932 and it was decreed on 22nd May, 1934, on contest by the tenant Defendants. 4. In 1934 the Basanda Babus brought a suit for their share of the rent of the same holding for the years 1339 and 1340 B.S., making the present Plaintiffs pro forma Defendants. This was Rent Suit No. 3559 of 1934. In this suit the present Plaintiffs (the then pro forma Defendants) got themselves transferred to the category of co-Plaintiffs as provided by sec. 148A (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The suit was decreed in accordance with the provisions of sec. 148A (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1935. 5. Both the decrees were put into execution in 1935:- (a) The decree in the Rent Suit No. 3559 of 1934 was put in execution by the Basanda Babus alone in Execution Case No. 836 of 1935. (b) The decree in the earlier suit was put into execution in Execution Case No. 870 of 1935. 6. (a) In Execution Case No. 836 of 1935 the present Plaintiffs were added as Opposite Party and were described as decree-holders unwilling to join in the execution. Execution was prayed for, for the benefit of all the decree-holders. But the amount of claim that was given in the application was the amount specified in the decree as payable to the Basanda Babus only. (b) Notice of this application for execution was given to the present Plaintiffs as required by sec. 148A (7). Execution was prayed for, for the benefit of all the decree-holders. But the amount of claim that was given in the application was the amount specified in the decree as payable to the Basanda Babus only. (b) Notice of this application for execution was given to the present Plaintiffs as required by sec. 148A (7). They appeared and made an application in that Execution Case with twofold prayers:- Viz.:-(1) to include in the execution the amount specified in the decree of the later suit as payable to them; (2) to consolidate the other execution case started by them with the Execution Case No. 836 of 1935 and proceed with the execution of the two decrees together; (c) This application was rejected by the executing Court and the present Plaintiffs took no further steps in the matter. 7. Both the execution cases then proceeded and for both 18th September, 1935, was fixed as the date of sale. 8. On 18th September, 1935, the holding was sold in the Execution Case No. 836 of 1935 and was purchased by the Basanda Babus themselves. 9. On the same date, but later on, the same property was sold in the other execution case and was purchased by the Plaintiffs themselves. 2. The question on which the appeal depends is which of these two sales should prevail. 3. The Basanda Babus have not been made parties to the present suit. The contesting Defendants claim some under-raiyati interest. It is not now in dispute that the Plaintiffs after their purchase served on these Defendants notices under sec. 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and consequently if the sale in which the Plaintiffs purchased be found to be an effective sale under Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act, these Defendants would have no right to resist Plaintiffs' claim. 4. The Court of first instance held that the same property could not be put to auction-sale twice and that the Basanda Babus being the prior purchasers, their purchase must prevail. According to him "after the property is brought to sale once, the Court can have no jurisdiction to put it to sale again and the purchaser at such a sale acquired nothing by his purchase." 5. Being of this opinion the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. 6. According to him "after the property is brought to sale once, the Court can have no jurisdiction to put it to sale again and the purchaser at such a sale acquired nothing by his purchase." 5. Being of this opinion the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. 6. On appeal by the Plaintiffs the learned Additional District Judge has reversed this decision and decreed the suit, being of opinion that as the Plaintiffs were not allowed to be joined as co-decree-holders for the amounts decreed in their favour in the suit of the Basanda Babus and the decree was not executed for the entire amount of all the decree-holders of that suit and as the sale was held for the amount of the decree in favour of Basanda Babus only, it would not have the effect of a rent sale, but would only be effective as a sale in execution of a money decree. According to him "the sale in execution of the decree of the Plaintiffs for the earlier period was a rent sale which passed the holding and not only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors as in the case of the sale in execution of the decree of Basanda Babus." 7. Against this decision the Defendants have preferred the present appeal and their contention is that the suit of the Basanda Babus having complied with all the requirements of sec. 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the execution of the said decree having been in compliance with the relevant provisions of the said Act, its character and effect cannot in any way be affected by the fact that Plaintiffs' application for joining the execution case as co-applicants was disallowed. 8. The question that requires consideration is whether in the circumstances stated above, the sale held in execution at the instance of the Basanda Babus did pass the holding to the purchaser. 9. Before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1928, sec. 8. The question that requires consideration is whether in the circumstances stated above, the sale held in execution at the instance of the Basanda Babus did pass the holding to the purchaser. 9. Before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1928, sec. 158B(1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act laid down that- Where a tenure or holding is sold in execution of- (a) a decree for arrears of rent due in respect thereof.....the tenure or holding shall.....pass to the purchaser, if such decree was obtained by- (i) a solo landlord, or (ii) the entire /body of landlords or (iii) one or more co-sharer landlords who has, or have, sued for the rent due to all the co-sharers in respect of the entire tenure or holding and made all the remaining co-sharers parties Defendants to the suit,..... Sub-sec. (2) of the section laid down:- When one or more co-sharer landlords, having obtained a decree in a suit framed under sub-sec. (i) or under see. 148A, applies, or apply, for the execution of the decree by the sale of the tenure or holding, the court shall, before proceeding to sell the tenure or holding, give notice of the application for execution to the other co-sharers.' 10. The whole section now stands repealed, most of its provisions being re-enacted as parts of other sections. The sub-sec. (2) is now sub-sec. (7) of sec. 148A. There is now no express provision laying down that the tenure or holding would pass as was contained in sub-sec.(1) of sec. 158B. But such express provision was somewhat superfluous in view of the provisions contained in sec. 65 and sec. 159 of the Act. 11. The question really is under what circumstances a decree for arrears of rent of a tenure or holding and a sale in execution of such decree shall be valid against the tenure or holding in the manner provided in Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 12. Sec. 65 lays down that where a tenant is a permanent tenure-holder, a raiyat holding at fixed rates or an occupancy raiyat....his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof, and the rent shall be first charge thereon. 13. 12. Sec. 65 lays down that where a tenant is a permanent tenure-holder, a raiyat holding at fixed rates or an occupancy raiyat....his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof, and the rent shall be first charge thereon. 13. Sec. 159, which is now the first section in Chapter XIV, lays down what the purchaser will take where a tenure or holding is sold in execution of a decree for arrears due in respect thereof. 14. It is not in dispute in this case that the Rent Suit No. 3559 of 1934 instituted by the Basanda Babus were in compliance with all the relevant provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, particularly of sec. 148A of that Act. Further it is not disputed that the decree obtained in that suit was a valid decree available against the holding in the manner provided in Chapter XIV of the Act. 15. The question therefore resolves into this : Whether the execution of the decree violated any of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act so as to withdraw from the sale held in it the effects of Chapter XIV of the Act. 16. The relevant provisions laying down the procedure to be followed in executing a decree for arrears of rent so as to procure the desired for result are contained in secs. 162 to 166 and sec. 148A(7). It is not disputed that the provisions of sees. 163 to 166, and 148A(7) were complied with in this case. 17. The question therefore further reduces to this: Whether the provisions of sec. 162 were strictly complied with here; if not, how far the non-compliance would affect the sale. 18. The application for execution did comply with all the requirements of sec. 162 excepting that in naming the amount recoverable under the decree the total amount so recoverable was not stated but only the amount payable to the Basanda Babus was given as the amount recoverable. As has been pointed out above, the application did contain all other descriptions of the decree and was expressly for the benefit of the decree-holders, meaning the entire body of the decree-holders. 19. As has been pointed out above, the application did contain all other descriptions of the decree and was expressly for the benefit of the decree-holders, meaning the entire body of the decree-holders. 19. In my opinion this non-compliance, if non-compliance it was, did not in any way affect the execution proceeding and the sale held in it would, in my opinion, have the effect of passing the entire holding to the purchaser as contemplated by sec. 65 and Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 20. Sec. 148A (6) of the Act indicates that in a suit like the one instituted by the Basanda Babus only one decree is made, though the amounts payable to different co-sharer landlords are separately specified. 21. Sec. 148A (7) shows that any one or more co-sharer landlords may put the decree in execution. The entire body of decree-holders need not join as applicants for execution. The subsection provides for giving notice of the application for the execution to the other co-sharers but no provision is made for enabling them to come and join in the application. 22. The reason for this omission is perhaps to be found in sub-sec. (8) (i) (b). Though the execution is conducted by a co-sharer, all the decree-holders are equally benefited by the proceeds of the sale held in execution. Their other interests are completely safe-guarded by their being in a position to watch the proceeding on notice given to them under sub-sec. (7). 23. In my opinion the sale held in the Execution Case No. 836 of 1935 had the effect of a rent-sale and the holding itself passed to the purchaser by that sale. 24. The next question is whether after that anything remained to be sold in execution of the other decree and whether the Plaintiffs purchased anything in the sale held in their execution case. In my opinion the Plaintiffs did not acquire any title to the holding by their subsequent purchase and I believe the decisions of this Court in Faez Rahaman v. Ram Sukh ILR 21 Cal. 169 (1893), Gopal Saran v. Sheikh Md. Ahsan 14 C.W.N. 1096 (1910) and Mathura mohan v. Nabin Chandra 20 C.W.N 749 (1916) amply support this view. In my opinion the Plaintiffs did not acquire any title to the holding by their subsequent purchase and I believe the decisions of this Court in Faez Rahaman v. Ram Sukh ILR 21 Cal. 169 (1893), Gopal Saran v. Sheikh Md. Ahsan 14 C.W.N. 1096 (1910) and Mathura mohan v. Nabin Chandra 20 C.W.N 749 (1916) amply support this view. The result therefore is that this appeal is allowed with costs, the judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below are set aside and those of the Court of first instance are restored.