The court discussed the transferability of patni taluks, the rights of the zemindar on a transfer, and the effect of a stay order. The court also considered the consolidation of rent suits and the effect of non-consolidation on the nature of the decree passed.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Mitter, J. - One Umesh Chandra Pal Chowdhury was the proprietor of two revenue paying estates, Mahal Taraf Munshipur and Mahal Dihi Rajapore, which are numbered 336 and 441 in the register of the Collector of the District of Nadia. On 26th February 1848, he granted a patni taluk of the said estates to two brothers, Pran Krishna and Nobo Krishna Pal Chowdhury, in the benami of one Shambhu Chandra Sinha, reserving an annual rent of Rs. 26,001 which was payable in 12 monthly kists (Ex. QQQ n-29). In 1850 there was a partition between Pran Krishna and Nobo Kri. shna. The instrument of partition was executed on 1st February 1850 (Ex. 24, 11-43). At that partition Pran Krishna got 12 mouzas appertaining to Taraf Munshipur and seven mouzas of Dihi Rajapore as representing his 8 annas share in the aforesaid patni taluk, and Nobo Krishna got in his allotment the remaining mouzas, viz., 12 mouzas of Taraf Munshipur and ten mouzas of Dihi Rajapore. They agreed between them to pay the patni rent in equal shares. It is the common case of both the parties that the patni taluk was not split up into two at this time or by this partition among the patnidars.

2. The mouzas of the patni taluk which fell to the allotment of Pran Krishna passed by succession to his grandsons, Nafar and Bipradas. At a partition effected between them in 1898 they fell to the share of Nafar and Bipradas retained no interest in them. On 3rd July 1930, Nafar executed a deed of gift in respect of most of his properties including the aforesaid mouzas of the patni taluk, in favour of his three sons on certain terms and conditions (Ex. 1, 11-256). Later on, differences arose between him and his sons over the matter of the gift. Those differences were referred to the arbitration of two persons who made their award on 2lst March e 1933. A decree was passed on the award on 8th July 1933 (EX. 44, H-749). The sons of Nafar are the plaintiffs in this suit. Bipradas' representatives are defendants 36 to 39. The mouzas of the patni taluk which had been allotted to Nobo Krishna at the partition of the year 1850 have vested in his-descendants, Joydurga, Saroj Ranjan, Nihar Ranjan and Kumud Ranjan Sinha, who are defendants 32 to 35. The group consisting of Saroj Ranjan, Nihar Ranjan and Kumud Ranjan would hereafter be called the "Sin-has." The landlord's interest has passed in the following manner. It first devolved by f inheritance on the five sons of Umesh Parameswar, Raj Rajeswar, Gopeswara, Biseswar and Keshav each of whom got 3 as. 4 gds. share. The 6 as. 8 gds. share which belonged to Parameswar and Raj Rajeswar passed by sale to Jadu Nath Khan and Jogonath Khan. Jadu's heirs are defendants 14, 15 and 20, and Jogonath's heirs are defendants 16 to 19. The name of defendant 14 is Jotindra Nath Khan.

3. Gopeswara dedicated his 3 as. 4 gds. share, to a deity named Jogonath Deb Thakur. His two sons Sarbeswara and Tarakeswara were the shebaits. On Tarakeswara's death his g widow Hiranmoyee became a joint shebait with Sarbeswara. They are defendants 12 and 13 in their personal capacity, and 28 and 29 in their capacity of shebaits to the said deity. The 6 as. 8 gds. share of Biseswar and Keshav passed by sale to the Pal Chowdhu-ris of Boyra-Kailash, Kaliprosonna Madan Mohan, Moti, Tarini and Sarada. The shares that belonged to Kailash, Moti, Tarini and Sarada - (total being 3 as. 4 gds.) are represented by defendants 7 to 9 Poresh and others. Kaliprosanna's share (1 a. 12 gds.) passed to his son Haribangsa, who died testate leaving him surviving his mother SatyaI bala, his widow Dakhyabala and two minor daughters. Whether by the terms of Haribanga's will the title to his share has vested in deity Lakshmi Jonardan Jiu is one of the questions involved in the appeal. Satyabala and Dakhyabala in their capacity as executrixes to the estate, of Haribangsa are defendants 10 and 11, and the common manager of that estate, Khirode Kumar Pramanik is also a party defendant. The deity La