AZIMOODDIN Vs. MATHURA MOHAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal in three analogous rent suits, in which two points are raised before us. The first arises thus. One Shukur Mamad was the owner of a patni which the plaintiffs respondents purchased at an execution sale in execution of a decree for arrears of the rent thereof. He sold the patni to Durga Charan Roy, who purchased on behalf of himself and his six brothers of whom one was Kali Kishore Roy, who parted with all his interest in the patni except five gandas. Subsequently, the rent of the patni fell into arrear and the landlords brought four suits in respect of it against Rahim Bakhsh the son of Shukur Mamad, who had no interest in the patni, and Kali Kishore. They obtained decrees in execution of one of which a sale of the patni took place at which the plaintiff became the purchaser.

(2.) Neither Durga Charan Roy nor any of his brothers ever took any steps to have the alienation to them registered in the landlord s sherista but the sales were registered under Section 12 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the first Court, the plaintiff failed to recover from the defendants though it was held that he was entitled to the five annas share of Kali Kishore. In the lower Appellate Court, the suits were decreed in respect of the entire claim.

(3.) The first point raised before us which was not raised in either of the Courts below, is that the registration of the transfer to Durga Charan and his brothers operated to give them an interest in the land effected by force of Sections 12 and 17 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We consider that in view of Section 195(e) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, this proposition is unsound.