JUDGMENT

1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that they had occupancy right in the jote in suit and that defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were their under-raiyats: and for rectification of certain entries in the Record of Rights which recorded the plaintiffs as tenure-holders and the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 as occupancy raiyats. The defendant No. 1 was the Receiver of the estate of the landlords. No lease was obtained before the institution of the suit from the Court appointing the Receiver. In the written statements of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 an objection was taken that the suit could not proceed in the absence of such leave, but no issue was framed on the point. The Receiver appeared in the suit and contested that the plaintiffs were not occupancy raiyats but tenure-holders. But he raised no objection with regard to the absence of leave to institute the suit against him. At the time of the argument before the Trial Court the Receiver submitted that the suit must fail as it was brought without the permission of the Court appointing him. The Trial Court overruled the objection on the ground that it- was taken too late. On app