Judgment

PALEKAR, J. : - This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No. 1918 of 1965 by which the appellant-plaintiff s title Suit No. 185 of 1958 was dismissed. The suit was for a declaration that the compromise decree in title Suit No.78 of 1947, obtained by the Corporation of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), defendant 1, against the Banerjees, who were defendants 2 to 5, was a fraudulent and collusive decree not binding on the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had continued to be a tenant of the suit property, and for further relief that the Corporation should be restrained permanently from executing that decree against the plaintiff. There was one more defendant to the suit viz., Messrs Reliance Development and Engineering Ltd., a public limited company, of which the plaintiff at all material times was the Managing Agent and Director. No relief was claimed against this Company which was defendant No.6. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif at Serampore, District Hooghly, in whose Court the suit had been filed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge of Hooghly set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and decreed the plaintiff s suit. In Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of the learned Addl. District Judge and dismissed the suit. It is against this decree that the plaintiff has come in appeal to this Court.

2. The land involved in this litigation is a portion of what is described as the Kotrung Estate. It is situated outside the limits of the Corporation and is in the Hoogly Collectorate. The area of this estate was about 105 acres and was held by the Corporation under the Crown as Lakhiraj. The entire estate was used for the manufacture of bricks and tiles and was commonly known as Kotrung Brick-field.

3. On November 1, 1926, the Corporation had leased out about 360 bighas out of this estate for a period of 10 years to one Kishori Mohan Banerjee, Kishori Mohan took possession of 1st November, 1926, though the registered lease was executed on 24th April, 1929. The period of the lease expired on 31st October, 1936 and it is common ground that the lease was continued for a further period of 10 years, although there was no written document for it.

4. The lessee, Kishori Mohan, divided the leased land into several parcels and it appears that, while he retained with himself about 2/5th of the area leased to him, the remaining 3/5th was let out by him to several sub-lessees who, on their own, put up brick-kilns and manufactured bricks and tiles. One of such sub-lessees was Messrs Seth Sugnichand Sundar Das & Co. to whom about 45 bighas of land were let out by Kishori Mohan. This Company, in turn, let out this whole parcel of 45 bighas to the present plaintiff by two documents dated 9th December, 1942 and 12th January, 1944. It is not clear if the whole of the right of M/s. Seth Sugnichand Sundar Das & Co. under the lease obtained by it from Kishori Mohan was transferred to the plaintiff, but it is common ground that the plaintiff used to pay the rent directly to Kishori Mohan or his heirs viz., defendants 2 to 4. The lease in favour of Kishori Mohan was terminated by the Corporation by a notice and on 26th September, 1947, the Corporation filed Title Suit No. 78 of 1947 for possession. Since the original lessee, Kishori Mohan, had died, his heirs, viz., defendants 2 to 5, the Banerjees were made defendants in that suit. During the pendency of the suit, negotiations were on foot for a compromise and, eventually, on 12th December 1949, a compromise petition was filed in that suit. Several sub-lessees were made, with their consent, parties to the suit and a decree for possession was passed not only against the Banerjees, but also the sub-lessees. The point, however, to be noted here is that, though the plaintiff was a sub-lessee, he was not a made a formal party to the suit and, under the terms of the