Sir Binod Mitter:-

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Patna, dated 29th March 1926 affirming the decision of the District Judge of Purneah, whereby it was held that a decree obtained by Dhanpat Singh dated 10th July 1896 cannot be executed against the respondent.

Dhanpat Singh was the zamindar of Lot Saifganj in Pargana Haveli in the district of Purneah, and Chatterpat Singh was the holder of the patni of the said lot. He settled the same in several parcels with various darpatnidars amongst others with the father of the present respondent. Dhanpat sold his zamindari to Bhagwanbati on 27th June 1893.

Dhanpat instituted a suit against the patnidar Chatterpat Singh on 21st September 1893, for arrears of rent due to him up to 27th June 1893, and obtained a decree which became final on 10th July 1896.

On 19th July 1896, Dhanpat executed a deed of trust in favour of several trustees for the benefit of his son Maharaj Bahadur Singh (and they are hereinafter referred to as appellants or decree-holders) of several properties, including amongst others the decree of 10th July 1896. Dhanpat died on 2lst July 1896.

Chatterpat again defaulted in the payment of rent of the putni and on 14th May 1900, Bhagwanbati, the purchaser, put up the putni for sale for arrears of rent for a period subsequent to her purchase. Mr. Forbes paid the arrears due to Bhagwanbati, amounting to Rs. 6,562-8, for the protection of his darputni tenure, and by such payment became a mortgagee of the entire putni under S. 13, sub-S. 4 of the Putni Regulation, and he was put into possession of the same under the same section.

In execution of a money decree the right title and interest of Chatterpat in the putni tenure was sold on 1st September 1902, and one Surendra Naryan Singh purchased the same and obtained symbolical possession of the putni on 18th May 1902, although Mr. Forbes continued to be in actual possession.

Thereafter there was litigation between the decree-holders and Surendra. The latter alleged that the decree was a money decree, but it was ultimately held between them that the decree was a rent decree creating a charge on the putni tenure under S. 65, Ben. Ten. Act.

The decree-holders applied on 9th May 1908, for execution of that decree against the judgment debtor and the execution case was numbered 11 of 1908. The putni was attached and sold in execution of the said decree, but the sale was ultimately set aside on 16th February 1911.

Mr. Forbes on 9th July 1906 instituted a suit against the decree-holders and Surendra for a declaration that the decree was a mere money decree, and on 9th March 1914, it was ultimately held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that the decree of 10th July 1906, was not a decree for rent under S. 65, Ben. Ten. Act, creating a charge on the tenure, but only a money decree, and that the respondent in this appeal had a charge under the Putni Regulation, and in any event this charge was not affected by any charge under the Bengal Tenancy, Act. Their Lordships further held that the appellants were not entitled to execute the decree against the putni and they were restrained by a perpetual injunction from doing so. A. F. Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh AIR 1914 P. C. 111 : 41 Cal. 926 : 41 I. A. 91 (P. C.).

In the meantime a suit numbered 240 of 1910 had been instituted by Surendra against the respondent, Forbes for accounts to which the decree-holders, that 13 Maharaj Bahadur and others, were not made parties.

In that last mentioned suit a final decree for the sale of the putni was made under O. 34, R. 5, in favour of the respondent on 8th January 1917, and the property was sold at the instance of the respondent and purchased by the latter on 4th August 1917, for the sum of Rs. 2,000.

The appellants, the present decree-holders, on 22nd January 1915, and on dates subsequent thereto, made various applications for execution of the decree against the judgment debtor and Surendra and the respondent. The last app