JUDGMENT

Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J. - Looking at this case from beginning to end, I should scarcely have thought it possible that there could be such a casein existence. It appears that Gurudas Roy, the respondent in this appeal, purchased two Government revenue-paying estates from Brahmamayi Devi and Ramjaya Samadar. Upon seeking to obtain possession, the property was found to be in the possession of Mr. Bell, the appellant in this case, who claimed under a putnee-grant from the same vendors, upon which an Act IV of 1840 case was instituted, and it was ordered that Mr. Bell should be retained in possession. Thereupon Gurudas Roy instituted a civil suit to recover back his purchase-money, and also certain revenue which he had paid to Government in respect of the estates. Mr. Bell though ha appears to have had nothing at all to do with the sale to Gurudas, or the receipt of the purchase-money from him, was made a co-defendant. No reason was given in the plaint for making Mr. Bell a party. The plaintiff did not even suggest that he had a right of action Against him, but in his plaint simply prayed a, refund from the Devi and the Samadar, defendants, of his purchase-money; and of th