NILADRI MAHANTI Vs. BICHITRANAND ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain land which they claim to be their under-tenure. The Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. This was reversed by the lower Appellate Court; and, on appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Brett has confirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The present appeal is from Mr. Justice Brett's judgment under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this suit can be briefly stated. The plaintiffs, on the 14 October 1901, purchased the land in suit from defendant No. 9, who himself purchased the under-tenure, of which this land forms part, on the 15 of December 1900 at a sale held in execution of a money-decree passed against defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. On the 28 of January 1902, the under-tenure was again put up to sale in execution of a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained by defendants Nos. 4 to 8, who were sharers in the estate to the extent of 8 annas, and claimed in the suit their share of the rent. At that sale defendant No. 3 purchased, and on the 17 of July 1902 he took possession of the property, and thereby, it is said, dispossessed the plaintiffs and their vendor, defendant No. 9. The plaintiffs claim that defendant No. 3 took nothing by his sale as against them, inasmuch as the decree was not a decree for rent, but was a decree for money due on account of a share of the rent of the under-tenure.

(3.) The answer made on behalf of defendant No. 3 is that the plaintiffs cannot be heard to advance this contention because they have no locus standi, whatever that may mean, inasmuch as the transfer to their vendor as well as to themselves has not been registered in the manner contemplated by Section 27 of Act X of 185.9. This view has found favour with the lower Appellate Court and with Mr. Justice Brett. The question is whether it can be sustained.