The determination of the authority of the agent to sign the plaintiff's name on the plaints and the impact of withdrawal of one plaintiff from the suit were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. These eleven appeals arise out of as many suits u/s 105, B.T. Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent of the grounds of additional area, the present rents being lower than the prevailing rate, and rise in the price of staple food crops.

2. The facts are that the appellant along with five others form the entire body of landlords and the suits were purported to have been brought by and on behalf of all these persons. Kiranbala Devi was plaintiff No. 5 and the appellant, Kali Charan Singha, plaintiff No. 6. The suits proceeded to a hearing and a large number of witnesses were examined and a large number of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. While the defendants' case was in progress Kiranbala who was described as plaintiff No. 5 filed an application on the 8th September 1920 to have her name 'struck out' from the category of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suits were not instituted with her knowledge and consent and that she did not want to prosecute the suits. This application in spite of the other plaintiffs' objection was granted and Kiranbala's name was ordered to be removed from the category of the plaintiffs. The other plaintiffs then applied to make plaintiff No. 5 a pro forma defendant and this was allowed. They also wanted to prove separate tenancy of the defendants under them but though opportunity was allowed them they did not attempt to prove it. In these circumstances the Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the suits on the ground that the suits are not maintainable in the absence of one of the joint landlords u/s 188, B.T. Act and that the other landlords failed to prove a separate tenancy by the remaining plaintiff. The learned Special Judge affirmed the order of the Court below. These second appeals from the decrees of the Special Judge came on for hearing before Chatterjee and Chotzner, JJ., who directed the Lower Court to enquire by taking fresh evidence as to whether the person who had signed Kiranbala's name in the plaints had the authority to do so, but retained the cases on the file of this Court. The records went back to the Lower Court but as it was represented to it that the pasties were going to settle the matter amicably that Court did not proceed further. An application was then made to this Court before the same Judges to call up the records from the Lower Court for the purposes of recording the compromise. The records came to this Court and a petition of compromise between plaintiffs 1 and 4 and the tenants defendants was filed. The negotiations for a compromise with the present appellant Kali Charan Singha fell through and he applied to the Court to proceed with the hearing of this appeal. The learned Judges thereupon permitted the appellant to examine in this Court a witness to prove the authority of Kali Das Dutta, who had signed the name of Kiranbala Devi on the plaints as her Am-Mukhtear or general agent and also to file certified copies of plaints and decrees in which it appeared that Kalidas had acted as the lady's agent. The cases have come before us on transfer and we have examined a witness Romesh Chandra Sanyal and received certified copies of a number of plaints and decrees filed by the appellant.

3. We understand by the order of the learned Judges above referred to that we have to determine the question, though one of fact, as to whether or not Kalidas Dutta had the authority to sign Kiran Bala Devi's name on the plaint. The learned Vakil for the respondent objects that we are not entitled to determine in second appeal a question of fact in view of the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaints were filed without the knowledge and consent of Kiran Bala Devi. We feel bound by the order to which reference has been made and which is intended to minimise cost and time of this protracted litigation. Besides, the point which we are called upon to determine was not directly raised or decided by either of the Courts below. The authority of Kali Das Du