JUDGMENT

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. - The two questions which have been referred to this Bench do not depend on the same considerations, and I prefer to answer the second before the first.

2. If the plaintiff in the case of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa ILR Cal. 708 had, when he brought his suit, a cause of action against the defendant, which he was then entitled to enforce against him, but the evidence to enable him to establish which was then, defective, because his title had not been registered, and if such defect of proof had been cured by registration before the final hearing, then I think the case of Dhoronidhnr Sen v. Wajidunnissa Khatoon ILR Cal. 708 was wrongly decided. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, which, when he brought his suit, he had the right to enforce by action against him, then in my opinion the case was rightly decided, as such a defect cannot be cured by anything which is done after the suit has been commenced.

3. The distinction has long been well known, and was recognized by Malins, V.C., in the case of Hassall v. Wright 10 EL.R. 509, in which he drew a distinction between the English Copyright Act, by which it