All cosharer landlords must be made parties to an application u/s 26-F, regardless of whether they are named in the notice of the transfer.

ORDER

S.K. Ghose, J. - This Rule arises out of an application u/s 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. It appears that in the deed of transfer with regard to an occupancy holding the petitioner was described as the sole landlord and accordingly notice of the transfer was given to him. On 10th April 1933 he filed the application for re-purchasing the holding u/s 26-F impleading the purchaser, the opposite party 1. On 10th June following the opposite party 1 intimated to the Court that there was another cosharer landlord, namely, Reajuddin Khondkar who had not been made a party. On 8th July the petitioner stated to the Court that he did not admit Reajuddin Khondkar to be a cosharer, but that still to get over the objection he would pray that Reajuddin be added as a party. On 5th August Reajuddin was added as a party. The learned Munsif held that this addition was not made within time and accordingly he rejected the application. Against that order the present Rule has been obtained.

2. It is contended that as the petitioner was described as the sole landlord under the deed of transfer it is not for him to make any other person a party to the application u/s 26-F stating such other person to be a cosharer. It is contended that it was for the opposite party to repudiate the statement in the deed of transfer. But u/s 188 read with Section 26-F and according to the trend of decisions particularly in Barkatulla Pramanik v. Ashutosh Ghose 1933 Cal 460, the position is that all persons who are in fact cosharer landlords must be made parties to an application u/s 26-F whether all such persons are named in the notice of the transfer or not. In the present case the petitioner does not admit Reajuddin to be a cosharer landlord. The learned Munsif has enquired into this point and has found that as a matter of fact Reajuddin is a cosharer. There is the Record of Rights with regard to plot No. 436 which is the subject-matter of transfer and the petitioner himself brought partition suit No. 80 of 1933, in which he treated this very plot No. 436 as joint. That being so, it was for the petitioner to make Reajuddin a party to this application within the time allowed by law. Consequently the decision of the lower Court cannot be interfered with. The Rule is discharged with costs hearing fee one gold mohur.