Basil Scott, C J - (1.)The facts necessary for the disposal of this case are concisely stated by the District Judge. The plaintiff was a creditor of the family of the defendants. The plaintiff s separated brother was also a creditor. The plaintiff s brother attached the family lands. The matter went in execution to the Collector. The Collector leased the family lands to one Piraji. The plaintiff and the defendants came to an agreement by which the plaintiff agreed to remit his debt he being a mortgagee and to pay off his brother the judgment-creditor, and the defendants agreed to sell him one of the lands. The plaintiff then obtained possession of the family lands from which he was ejected by the defendants and he now sues to recover possession.
(2.)The lower Court found that the defendant No. 1 executed the sale-deed in suit and that it was intended to convey the interests of the defendants by way of sale, that there was no fraud, that the sale was binding on the minor defendants, and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession after the expiration of the lease of Piraji.
(3.)At the hearing in the District Court arguments were confined to the point whether the sale was void. It was admitted that the arrangement as to sale and settlement of the decretal debt was entirely unknown to the Collector and that the Collector was at the time of the sale exercising his powers under Section 325A. The learned District Judge holds that upon these facts the sale was in contravention of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and that the defendants were incompetent to sell, that the plaintiff s sale-deed, therefore, conferred no title on him and he was not entitled to possession under that sale- deed then or at any future time.