Ramaswami, J.

1. The question in this case is whether the Munsif of Patna acted beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., in proceedings in execution of a rent decree.

2. The petitioners had obtained the rent decree in question on the 23-9-1948, as regards a holding of the area of 1 bigha 6 kathas, 9 dhurs comprising plot No. 198 under Khata No. 100 and plot No. 309 under khata No. 101, in village Sadiqpur. The rent decree was obtained against one Mundar Kuer who was a recorded tenant. The opposite party, however, claimed that they had purchased the entire holding on the basis of a sale deed dated 2-12-1937, long before the institution of the rent suit. The opposite party further claimed that after the execution o£ the Kebala they obtained possession of the holding and gave it in thica to Sanichar Sao through a registered document. The main objection of the opposite party was that the petitioners were not 16 annas landlords with respect to the holding but they were entitled to only 6 annas share and on this ground it was contended that the decree had not the effect of a rent decree and Section 170, Bihar Tenancy Act, did not const