DHIRENDRA NATH ROY Vs. RAJENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against orders of the Subordinate Judge, Backerganj; confirming orders of the Munsif, first Court, Barisal, and arise out of certain execution proceedings. The plaintiffs decree-holders, who are the appellants before us, applied for service of sale-proclamation under Section 165, Bengal Tenancy Act. The co-sharer landlords, who were pro forma defendants in the suit, objected on the ground that the decree was not a rent decree, the plaints in the rent suits not being in compliance with the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The trial Court gave effect to this contention, and that decision was on appeal affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The plaintiffs-decree-holders have now appealed to this Court, and it has been urged on their behalf that the Courts below have misconstrued the decree holding erroneously that it is not a rent decree, that the plaint in the rent suit complied with the provisions of Section 148- A, Bengal Tenancy Act, and that sale-proclamations should have been issued under Section 165 of that Act.

(3.) The learned vakil for the appellants has referred to several decided cases in support of his contention, reliance being chiefly placed upon the cases of Jagabandhu Nandi V/s. Abdul Hamid Mea and Nundalal Chowdhury V/s. Kala Chand Chowdhury [1910] 15 C.W.N. 820. The latter of these cases is distinguishable from the present case as the plaintiffs in that case alleged in their plaint that they had reason to believe that the rent due to their co-sharer pro forma defendant had been paid and consequently they, were justified in suing for their own share of the rent only.