Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave raise a question as to the interpretation of S. 37-A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, No. VII of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents brought a suit in the court of the Second Munsif, Burdwan for a declaration that they were entitled to the property in dispute, for confirmation of their possession thereof and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their possession. In the alternative they prayed for delivery of possession to them of the property in dispute in case it was found that they were not in possession. The case of the respondents was that the property in dispute belonged to one Jatindra Mohan Hajra, who was the father of three of the respondents. He mortgaged the property to Kali Krishna Chandra who was a defendant in the suit. Kali Krishna Chandra obtained a mortgage decree in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Burdwan and in execution of the said decree got the mortgaged property sold, purchased the property in auction sale and thus came into possession thereof in November 1937. This happened before S. 37-A was introduced in the Act by the Bengal Agricultural Debtors (Amendment) Act, 1942, (No. II of 1942). After the introduction of S. 37-A in the Act, the respondents applied thereunder for getting back possession of the property. In the meantime it appears that Kali Krishna Chandra sold the property to the present appellant in June 1942. That is how she was made a party to the proceedings under S. 37-A of the Act. The respondents succeeded in their application under S. 37-A of the Act and obtained possession of the property in suit in November 1947. The respondent's case further was that their possession was disturbed by the appellant thereafter and they had to go to the criminal court in that connection. But the criminal case resulted in acquittal and consequently the respondents brought the present suit in order to remove the cloud on their title and to obtain possession incase it was found that they were not in possession.
(2.) The suit was resisted by the appellant on a number of grounds. In the present appeal, however, learned counsel for the appellant has raised only two grounds before us, namely - (I) that the Debt Settlement Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) had no jurisdiction in the matter as the decree in the mortgage suit was for more than Rs. 5,000, and (ii) that S. 37-A of the Act did not apply to a bona fide purchaser for value from the auction-purchaser. We shall confine ourselves therefore to these two points only.
(3.) The Munsif who tried the suit held that S. 37-A was available against a bona fide transferee for value also. But the question of jurisdiction of the Board on the ground that the amount involved was more than Rs. 5,000 was not raised before the Munsif and so there is no finding on that aspect of the matter in the Munsif's judgment. Holding that S. 37-A applied to bona fide transferees for value also, the Munsif decreed the suit.;