The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Patni Regulation to determine the liability of part owners in a patni tenure for rent.

JUDGMENT

1. Lot Rosowa appertains to Touzi no. 111 of Beerbhoom Collectorate. The past proprietors of the said touzi settled the same in patni taluk to one Shibohandra Chakravarty at an annual rent of rs. 7623-5-8. The patnidar was to pay the revenue of the touzi (Rs. 4173-14 annas) by barat and the balance of the patni rent as munafa to the proprietor of the said touzi. The plaintiffs purchased 5 as. 19 gundas 3 karas odd share of that touzi at a revenue sale.

2. In 1935 they brought a rent suit, Rent Suit No. 24 of 1935, against a large number of persons for recovery of the arrears of rents due in their share for the years 1339.1341. We call those defendants, for brevity's sake, the Mitters, the Tewaris, the shebaits, the Kabirajes and the trustees of the Jagadamba Estate. It is admitted by the parties, that the Kabirajes had at that time 10 annas share of the patni and were liable as between them and the other patnidars for that share of rent for the period for which rent was claimed in that suit. In that suit the plaintiffs prayed for a joint decree against all the defendants. The Kabiraj defendants, however, pleaded that their liability for rent had been separated and that the plaintiffs could obtain a decree against them only for 10 annas share of the rent claimed in the suit. This defence was overruled by the trial Court, which passed a decree for the whole amount claimed by the plaintiffs against the Kabiraj defendants and the other defendants. The Kabiraj defendants preferred a first appeal to this Court, being no. 136 of 1936. The respondents were the plaintiffs and the other defendants to the said rent suit. The appellants in that appeal, namely, the Kabiraj defendants, and the plaintiffs-respondents filed a petition of compromise in this Court. That compromise was recorded and a decree was passed in terms thereof. The appeal was dismissed as against the other respondents--the defendants-respondents who had not joined in the compromise. The material terms of the compromise were: (i) that on receipt of a selami of Rs. 700 the plaintiffs recognised the Kabiraj defendants as their patnidars at the apportioned rent of Rs. 1784-4-11 per year plus cess rs. 154-4-9 (as being the rent and cesses payable in respect of 10 annas share which they had in the patni); (ii) that this apportionment was to come into effect from 1342 B.S. (iii) that the plaintiffs will not be entitled to make the Kabiraj defendants liable for the rent and cesses of the patni payable in the share of the co-patnidars of the Kabiraj defendants from 1342, and (iv) that out of the apportioned rent of Rs. 1784-4-11 plus cesses, Rs. 154-4-9, the Kabiraj defendants will pay Rs. 976-12-11 as revenue in the Collectorate to the credit of the plaintiffs as per kists of revenue and pay the balance of Rupees 807-8-0 plus cesses, Rs. 154-4-9, as munafa to the plaintiffs according to kists and also interest as mentioned in the patni kabuliat.

3. One Banku Behary who had 1 anna 6 pies share in the patni had mortgaged his patni interest twice. The first mortgagee was Nistarini Debi and the second mortgagees were the Tewaris. The Tewaris brought a suit against their mortgagor and obtained a decree in execution of which they purchased Banku Behari's 1 anna 6 pies share in the patni and obtained delivery of possession. In their character as part purchasers of the patni they were impleaded as parties defendants in Rent Suit No. 24 of 1935. The plaintiffs in that suit got a rent decree against them along with others. On 14th August 1935, which corresponds to some day in Vadra 1340, they sold their patni interest to two ladies, Mankumari and Gouribala. That may or may not be a benami transaction but that fact is not material. We simply recite the same to give a connected history. The material fact, however, is that Nistarini brought a suit, Title Suit No. 6 of 1934, to enforce her mortgage. In that suit she impleaded her mortgagor as also the puisne mortgagees--the Tewaris --as