HARI DASS HALDAR Vs. ANANDA KUMAR NASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiffs-respondents to recover, possession of a two-thirds share of certain rent-paying lands on the allegation that the plaintiffs were entitled to a one-third share by inheritance from the last recorded tenant, and to another one- third share by purchase from one of his heirs; that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to the remaining one-third share; that the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had been paying rent to the landlords and obtaining Separate rent receipts for some years; that subsequently, misunderstandings having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, these latter colluded with the landlords, and caused a rent suit in respect of the entire Jama, to be brought against them and allowed a decree to pass, in execution of which the lands were sold and purchased by the defendant No. 1.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 denied the plaintiffs right, and contended that the rent suit was brought by the landlords against the person who was the Sarbarakar, or manager, of the jama, and in execution of the decree obtained in that suit, the lands were sold and purchased in good faith by the defendant No. 1, The Courts below have held that the execution sale did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, and they have accordingly given the plaintiffs a decree. In second appeal it is contended, on behalf of the defendant No. 1, firstly, that the suit could not proceed in the absence of the landlords; and secondly, that the Courts below were wrong in holding that the sale in execution of the rent decree obtained by the landlords could not pass the whole tenure, but passed merely the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor.

(3.) As to the first point, we think it sufficient to say that as the plaintiffs seek to recover possession of their share of the lands in dispute upon establishment of their right, and have made the persons in possession of the land, who claimed title to the land as against the plaintiffs, parties to the suit, there could be no objection to the suit proceeding, merely because the landlords, at whose instance the defendant No. 1 made his purchase, had not been added as parties.