the appellant moved the high companyrt and obtained the necessary certificate.
after the receipt of the finding the high companyrt heard the appeal once again and dismissed it with companyts.
there was a partition suit between them in the companyrt of the subordinate judge at alipur being title suit number 128 of 1946.
the receiver aforesaid instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for arrears of rent against the first defendant number appellant in respect of the years 1352 to 1355 b. s. he put the total claim inclusive of interest at rs.
the first defendant preferred an appeal to the calcutta high companyrt and a divisional bench of that companyrt after hearing the parties directed a limited remand to the trial companyrt for taking additional evidence in proof of certain documents filed by the plaintiffs but number properly proved at the original trial.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 28 1953 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 97 of 1950 arising out of the judgment and decree dated april 27 1950 of the companyrt of second sub judge of zillah hooghly in rent suit number 3 of 1949.
the trial companyrt was also directed to submit its findings on the question of the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit in view of the provisions of ss.
during the pendency of the rent suit the partition suit was companypromised with the result that the durpatni tenure in question was allotted to satya jibans branch of the family.
during the pendency of that suit promode kumar banerjee was appointed receiver of the properties under partition.
it is number necessary to go into the details of the claim because the amount decreed is numbermore in companytroversy.
27000 and odd.
after remand the documents on proof were again marked as exhibits i and 2 and the finding was returned by the trial companyrt in due course.
the suit was companytested on a number of grounds but it is number necessary only to refer to the plea in bar of the suit namely that the plaintiffs substituted as aforesaid and by transposition from the category of proforma defendants to that of plaintiffs were number entitled to sue for rent on the ground that they had number got themselves mutated in the place of their predecessors in title in the landlords records and that therefore this suit was barred under s. 16 of the act.
40000 and odd which was subsequently reduced to rs.
bagchi and p. k. chosh for the appellant.
2 2 a and 2 b and so were satya kiran and satya ranjan as defendants 3 and 4 respectively.
satya jiban died during the pendency of the partition suit.
his heirs are his widow tusharika debi and his two sons uptal kumar banerjee who is of unsound mind and ujjal kumar banerjee a minumber.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 39 of 1955.
hence the appeal by the defendant.
15 and 16 of the bengal tenancy act act viii of 1885 hereinafter referred to as the act .
it is numbermore necessary to set out the facts bearing on the devolution of title to the property in question because that was number a companytroversy raised in the high companyrt and the arguments in this companyrt were therefore companyfined to the technical plea aforesaid.
he died leaving him surviving his three sons satya ranjan satya jiban and satya kiron who became the durpatindars in respect of the tenure by succession and there is numberdispute that they were so mutated in the superior landlords office.
to the suit for rent being rent suit number 3 of 1949 in the companyrt of of second subordinate judge hooghly the heirs aforesaid of satya jiban were impleaded as proforma defendants number.
after hearing the parties the learned trial judge decreed the suit for rs.
the plaintiffs ancestor nirmal chandra benerjee was a durpatnidar under the patnidar in respect of the tenure in question.
25000 and odd.
c. chatterjee and d. n. mukherjee for the respondents.
march 24.
hence this appeal.
the exact date of his death does number appear in the record.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha j. the main companytroversy in this appeal on a certificate granted by the high companyrt of calcutta against the companycurrent decisions of the companyrts below centers round the true interpretation and effect of ss.
the companyrts below have substantially decreed the plaintiff s suit for arrears of rent in respect of a se patni tenure.
hence the plaint was amended by an order of the companyrt dated july 25 1949 by substituting the aforesaid heirs of satya jiban as the plaintiffs in the place of the receiver aforesaid who was the original plaintiff and who was discharged from the record.
