JUDGMENT

Walsh, J. - I have felt some difficulty about this ease, especially the last point urged on behalf of the appellant, namely, the necessity for formal proceedings to set aside the decree for ameans of rent as against the zamindar by the plaintiffs in order to enable them to maintain this suit. The argument, I think, may be accurately stated in this way: inasmuch as the defendant claims title from and through the zamindar, the plaintiffs in order to succeed must get rid of that which conferred upon the zamindar the right to grant the patta which he granted to the defendant-appellant before me. On the other hand, the respondents' argument is that the decree in question is only a decree for arrears of rent. It is not necessary for them to have that set aside if they can show that it was fraudulently obtained as against them. The subsequent proceedings resulting in the actual ejectment, if there was an actual ejectment, are invalid in the eyes of the law and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. On the whole, I think, that answer is an effective answer. The substance of the matter is this. The suit is one brought by two persons, who were mortgagors, for redemption against the mortg