R.P.MOOKERJEE, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits brought under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C. for establishment of the pltf's. right to proceed against certain holdings. The executing Ct. had allowed the claims as put forward by defts. 4 to 10 who are the applts. in this Ct.
(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 were the recorded owners of two premises situated within the ambit of the Municipality of Kurseong. The pltf. Municipality brought two suits against the said recorded owners for recovery of arrear rates in respect of those two premises as had accrued due for the period 1937 -1940. The suits were decreed on 4 -4 -1940. In execution of the said decrees the two holdings were attached before being put up to sale. Defts. 4 to 10 preferred claims against the order for attachment and contended that they had previously obtained a decree against defts. 1 to 3 in Money Suit No. 21 of 1939 and in execution of that decree the properties in suit had been purchased by them on 21 -2 -1940. Defendants 4 to 10 had not been impleaded by the Municipality in the suits brought by them for the realisation of arrear rates. The claims preferred by defts. 4 to 10 were allowed. The Municipal Comrs. have accordingly filed the present suits. The Ct. of first instance decreed the present suits in part. The amounts decreed in favour of the Municipality for arrear rates were declared to be a first charge upon the defaulting holdings. It was, however, held that the defts. 4 to 10 were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and the charge could not be enforced against them. On appeal by the pltf. before the Dy. Commr., Darjeeling, the decrees were modified and it had been directed inter alia that the decretal amounts were a first charge on the holdings concerned and that the pltfs. were entitled to attach and sell them in satisfaction of the decree. There was, however, no personal liability so far as the defts. 4 to 10 were concerned. Defendants 4 to 10 have come up on appeal to this Ct.
(3.) THE only material question in issue in the present appeals is whether under Section 167, Bengal Municipal Act, there was a statutory charge on the premises in respect of the arrear rates and whether the earlier auction purchase in Feb. 1940 by defts. 4 to 10 was subject to the charge, if there were any, for the rates. Other questions raised in the Cts. below have not been agitated before us.;