ENDAY ALI HOWLADAR Vs. BENODINI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Rules were granted in connection with an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal granting an application under Order XXII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The petitioner brought certain rent suits and pending these rent suits, he executed a conveyance in favour of the opposite parties in respect of certain properties. The opposite parties applied for substitution of their names in the place of the petitioner in the rent suits, on the ground that the petitioner had sold his interest in the tenure which included the land in respect of which the rent suits were instituted, The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the Kobala had been tampered with and that he had not sold the properties in suit to the opposite parties.

(3.) The Court of first instance held that it could not rely on the Kobala as purporting to convey the interest of the petitioner in the suit to the opposite parties and accordingly dismissed the application for substitution on the 28th May 1917. The rent suits were then tried and decreed in favour of the petitioner on the 18th June 1917. The opposite parties in the meantime appealed against the order of the Munsif, dated the 28th May 1917 and on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the tenure in question was sold to the opposite parties and ordered them to be substituted in place of the petitioner.