1. In support of this appeal two points have been taken; first, that the learned District Judge is in error in his decision on the question of limitation and, secondly, that he is in error in holding that a portion only of the holding has been transferred and that, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to eject the defendants.
2. So far as the first point is concerned, we are unable to agree in the decision of the learned Judge, for, we think that, when the whole execution proceedings were set aside after the decree had been set aside, the decision in the claim case which was brought in the course of those proceedings fell with those proceedings. On the second point, however, we are of opinion that sufficient grounds have not been made out for our interference with the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The learned pleader for the appellant admits that only a portion of the holding has been sold; but he says that that portion of the holding is a complete holding within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act because that is the interest of one of the tenants and that tenant has transferred the whole of his interest to the purchaser. We are unable to agree in the view that where there arc several tenants in a holding and each of them holds a separate portion of the holding, each of those portions should be treated as a separate holding or that a transfer of one of those portions would operate as an abandonment which would entitle the landlord to re-enter that portion. We think that in this case the learned Judge has rightly held that there was not such an abandonment of the whole holding as would entitle the landlord to re-entry.
3. The result, therefore, is that we affirm the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.