JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This appeal is by the judgment-debtors. The question for determination is whether a sale held in execution of a decree for rent due on a patni was a nullity. The property sold consisted of certain properties other than the defaulting patni. Some of the properties were under the management of a common manager appointed by the District Judge, under sec. 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The notices under Or. 21, rr. 22 and 66 were served on him. The Appellants' contention is that the result of this is that the sale was a nullity. The learned Munsif made a declaration to that effect in their favour. But his decision has been reversed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge. 2. In support of the decision of the Munsif Mr. Chakravarty put his case so high as to suggest that the execution proceedings were not taken against the judgment-debtors at all. He is indeed bound to put his case as high as that if he is to have any chance of success. It would certainly be a strange thing if, as a result of execution proceedings being taken against the common manager, the property brought to sate was not his but property belonging to the judgment-debtors. 3. I have examined the petition for execution and I find that the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The proceedings were taken against the judgment-debtors. This is made quite clear by the entry in column 10. 4. The legal effect of serving the notices under Or. 21, r. 22 and r. 66 on the manager is that they were not served at all. Before the addition of sub-sec. (3) the r. 22 in 1933, the Appellant would have succeeded. But the effect of the alteration made in the law by that amendment is that the Court had jurisdiction to sell the property and the failure to serve these notices, serious though it is, is only an irregularity. It is therefore impossible to hold that the sale was a nullity. 5. There is one further matter which requires consideration. Some of the properties brought to sale were under the management of the common manager. It is argued that these properties could not be sold without the sanction of the District Judge, who appointed the common manager. It is therefore impossible to hold that the sale was a nullity. 5. There is one further matter which requires consideration. Some of the properties brought to sale were under the management of the common manager. It is argued that these properties could not be sold without the sanction of the District Judge, who appointed the common manager. I am not surprised to find that no authority could be cited in support of this proposition. I will merely say that there is no kind of analogy, similarity or connection between a suit brought against a common manager for accounts and the execution of a decree obtained against the proprietors of the property under his management. 6. The appeal is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.