JUDGMENT Lodge, J. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- 1. The present Appellant Nibaran Chandra Das instituted a suit for declaration of his title to the property described in the schedule to the plaint and for recovery of possession thereof. The lands in suit originally belonged to one Soleman who mortgaged the same to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff instituted a suit on that mortgage and obtained a decree and in execution of the mortgage decree purchased the suit lands in auction sale. He took delivery of possession of the suit land through Court on the 19th August, 1931. The Plaintiff was himself a co-sharer landlord. After the sale the Plaintiff stated to the Court that he was the sole landlord and that there was, therefore, no occasion to put in land lord's fees under sec. 26E of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed without any landlord's fees being deposited. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 instituted a rent suit, being Rent Suit No. 1457 of 1937, for arrears of rent of the holding comprising the land in suit and obtained a decree. The Plaintiff was not made proforma Defendant and one of the Defendants in the suit who was in fact a minor was described as a major and sued as such. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree and put the holding to sale and in execution of that sale purchased the holding. Defendant No. 1 obtained possession and subsequently settled the suit land with Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The Court of first instance held that the Plaintiff had established his title to the lands in suit; that the decree obtained by Defendant No. 1 would not have the effect of a rent decree and consequently the Plaintiff's prior purchase in 1931 would prevail. 3. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd, Dacca, reversed the decision of the learned Munsif. He held that the decree obtained by Defendant No. 1 had not the effect of a rent decree, because the Plaintiff was not made a party pro forma Defendant and because one of the Defendants was sued as a major who was in fact a minor. He held that the decree obtained by Defendant No. 1 had not the effect of a rent decree, because the Plaintiff was not made a party pro forma Defendant and because one of the Defendants was sued as a major who was in fact a minor. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that the Plaintiff practised fraud upon the Court by representing that there was no co-sharer landlords and thus obtaining confirmation of the sale to him in execution of the mortgage decree without any deposit of the landlord's fees. The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly ordered that the appeal be allowed and that the decree of the first Court be set aside and the suit be dismissed with costs. 4. The question before me now, is, therefore, whether a sale which was confirmed by the execution Court as a result of fraud practised on that Court by the auction-purchaser in falsely representing that there were no co-sharer landlords and without any deposit of landlord's fees as required by sec. 26E is a nullity, as held by the Court of Appeal below. The fact that the present Appellant did falsely represent to the execution Court that there were no co-sharer landlords and that no landlords' fees were required to be deposited has been found by the Court of Appeal below and cannot be challenged before me. For the Respondents reliance was placed first on the case of Bandon v. Henry Becher and on the subsequent Indian case of III clerk & Finnelly 479 1835 Akhil Prodhan v. Manmatha Nath Kar 1913 18 C.L.J. 616. 5. From these decisions and subsequent Indian decisions, it seems clear that a Court is entitled to hold that a decree or order obtained by practising fraud on the Court, as distinct from a decree or order obtained merely by giving false evidence, can be treated as a nullity without separate proceedings being instituted for setting aside. 6. On behalf of the Appellant, the only cases referred to, were those of Lakshan Chandra Naskar v. Raiudas Mondal (1929) 33 C. W. N. 795. and Jagnesor Sikdar v. Kailash Mandal (1923) 28 C. W. N. 821. but those two cases were decided on a construction of sec. 47 of the CPC which has no application in the present case. On behalf of the Appellant, the only cases referred to, were those of Lakshan Chandra Naskar v. Raiudas Mondal (1929) 33 C. W. N. 795. and Jagnesor Sikdar v. Kailash Mandal (1923) 28 C. W. N. 821. but those two cases were decided on a construction of sec. 47 of the CPC which has no application in the present case. On the authorities placed before me I am of opinion that the learned Subordintte Judge was right in holding that he was entitled to treat the confirmation which was obtained by fraud as a nullity, that is to say, the position of the parties should be regarded as the same as if the sale had not in fact been confirmed, if the sale be regarded as not having been confirmed, the Plaintiff did not obtain such title to the land as would entitle him to succeed in the suit. In my opinion, therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed by the Court of Appeal below and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.