JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent obtained a decree for arrears of rent of a putni held by the Appellant under the Respondent. The putni was sold under the Putni Regulations. The Respondent thereupon attached certain other immovable properties of the Appellant in execution of this decree and purchased those properties at the auction-sale. This sale was confirmed in the year 1936. Sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act was introduced after sec. 168 of the said Act by the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act 1940 which came into force on the 9th January, 1941. The Respondent thereafter made an application for delivery of possession of the properties purchased by him in execution of the rent decree. The Appellant objected to this delivery of possession on the ground that in view of the provisions of sec. 168A (2), the Respondent was not entitled to get possession of the properties purchased by him. This objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge. The Respondent thereupon appealed to the first Appellate Court. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting his application was incompetent. Hence this second appeal by the judgment-debtor. The contention of the Appellant is that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the appeal to him was incompetent. Assuming that this contention is correct, we are not prepared to interfere with the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the objection of the Appellant to the delivery of possession of the properties purchased by the Respondent, inasmuch as sec. 168A (2) does not apply to a case where the property was attached and sold before the amending Act of 1940 came into operation. Sub-r. (2) really contemplates a case where the property was attached before the amending Act came into force but was not actually sold. It may be that the question of delivery of possession between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder auction-purchaser, is a question under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-r. (2) really contemplates a case where the property was attached before the amending Act came into force but was not actually sold. It may be that the question of delivery of possession between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder auction-purchaser, is a question under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But from that it does not follow that where the property was sold before the amending Act of 1940, the decree-holder did not obtain a valid title to the said property by his purchase and consequently he is not entitled to obtain possession from Court, As the Respondent's title to the properties purchased by him was completed before the new Act came into operation, he is entitled to get possession of the properties purchased by him from Court. 2. The result is that this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Let the record be sent down as early as possible.