SITARAM AGARWALLA Vs. RAJENDRA CHANDRA PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts by which the order of the learned Munsiff of Dhubri dismissing ' plaintiffs suit was reversed and plaintiffs' suit decreed.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Defendant No. 1 who has been sued for ejectment executed a Kabuliyat in favour of pro forma Defendant No. 2. The Kabuliyat was for three years. The period expired at the end of Chaitra 1356 B.S. Plaintiffs claim to be the successors in interest of the original lessor, pro forma defendant No. 2 Half of the tenancy was transferred by defendant No. 2 to Pulin Bihari Paul, the predecessor -in -interest of plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4. The other half was transferred to plaintiff No. 1 who is an uncle of plaintiffs 2 to 4. A notice of ejectment was sent to defendant to vacate the house as the term of the lease had expired.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is completely devoid of any merit. It is answered by the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 1, C.P.C. which provides that "all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or scries of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alernative, where, if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise".