(1.) The plaintiffs appellants and their cosharer one Jugdeo Lal held certain tenancies in two villages Lokpur and Ekil. The defendants were under-raiyats under the plaintiffs and their cosharer in respect of these two holdings. The entire body of landlords including Jagdeo Lal gave notice to the defendants under Section 49, Ben Ten Act, requiring them to quit the lands on the expiration of the term of the notice. After the term of the notice had expired it appears that Jagdeo Lal received certain rents from the defendants. He received rent in respect of his 8 annas share of the holding in Mauza Lokpur and he received the entire rent in respect of the 16 annas share of the holding in Mauza Ekil.
(2.) On 16 September the present suit for ejectment of the defendants was instituted by the present appellants as well as by Jagdeo Lal as plaintiffs. The defence of the defendants was that they were not under raiyats but raiyats and that the status of the plaintiffs was that of tenure-holders. The Munsif decreed the suit on a finding that the defendants were under raiyats under the plaintiffs. There was an appeal by the defendants to the Subordinate Judge. During the pendency of the appeal Jagdeo Lal entered into a compromise with the defendants and accepted the rent. Upon this compromise the Subordinate Judge held that the suit was no longer maintainable inasmuch as the entire body of landlords were not seeking relief against the tenants and he accordingly dismissed the suit. On second appeal to this Court this judgment of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the case remanded to him for a finding as regards the genuineness or otherwise of the receipts alleged to have been granted by Jagdeo Lal and for disposal of the suit according to law.
(3.) After remand the Subordinate Judge found that the receipts produced by the defendants in respect of the payment of rent to Jagdeo Lal were genuine and he gave a decree to the other plaintiffs, namely, the present appellants, for partial ejectment of the defendants in respect of their shares in the holding. The defendants preferred a second appeal to this Court which was heard by a single Judge and the learned Judge allowed the appeal on a finding that having regard to the fact that Jagdeo Lal had accepted rent before the institution of the suit therefore at the time of the institution of the suit there was no subsisting cause of action in favour of Jagdeo Lal one of the plaintiffs, and that therefore the suit of the other plaintiffs also could not be entertained. The second appeal was therefore allowed and the entire suit was dismissed.