(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, a lady, shebait under her husband s Will, to eject the appellant, the principal defendant, from three jamas which had come into his possession under a sale certificate dated September 1903, which a third party had obtained against defendants Nos. 1 to 6.
(2.) It is extremely difficult to follow the judgment of either of the Courts inasmuch as the parties are wrongly described, the transferee being described as the principal defendant and not numbered and the transferors being Nos. 1 to 6. But this much is clear that by the sale certificate Exhibit B, the whole of these three jamas were transferred to the principal defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff sued the six defendants for rent, but the defendants Nos. 3 to, 5 were exonerated from, the suit for what reason we know not; but it must have been because the Court held they had no interest in the holding, for we find that the whole of the arrears sued for were decreed against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 6. These points have not been considered by the learned Judge at all, and the Munsif in his judgment, although he set out at page 14 to describe this litigation, unfortunately did not go far enough. But the question is a pure question of law, and we think that we can deal with it on the authorities and dispose of the suit.
(3.) The contention on behalf of the principal defendant, who is the appellant and transferee of the whole of this jama, is that inasmuch as the learned Judge has found that the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 are still in possession of a portion of the jama, no forfeiture could have been incurred on the authority of the rulings in Kabil Sardir v. Chandra Nath Nag Chowdhry 20 C. 590; Rai Kamaleswari Persad Sing Bahadur v. Maharaj Harbullab Narain Singh Bahadur 2 C.L.J. 369; Chandra Mohun Mookhopadhaya v. Bissesswar Chatterjee 1 C.W.N. 158; Durga Prosad Sen v. Doula Gazee 1 C.W.N. 160 and Sheikh Gozoffer Hossein v. E. Dablish 1 C.W.N. 162.