The main legal point established in the judgment is that the leases claimed by the defendants were binding on the plaintiff as they benefited the mortgagee, and that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply.

Macnair, A J C—The plaintiff obtained possession of certain fields in execution of a decree on a day when crops were standing in the fields. The defendants,., alleging that they were lessees of the judgment-debtor, prevented the plaintiff from taking the crops. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C, followed, the crops were sold and the proceeds were held by the criminal Court which ordered that they should be paid to the defendants. The plaintiff sued for the sale-proceeds, Rs. 5,250. The main defence was that the lessees were bona fide transferees, and the leases were binding on the plaintiff. The learned Sub-Judge has held that the defendants are bona fide lessees, but that the leases are not binding on the plaintiff. The suit was decreed, and the defendants appeal.

2. The ground that the suit was bad for misjoinder is hardly pressed. Order 1, Rule 3, appears to me to permit the joinder. The main ground of appeal is that the plaintiff decree-holder is bound by the leases.

3. For the respondent it is strongly urged that the judgment-debtor himself cultivated the land and that the story of the leases is an invention intended to prevent the decree-holder from obtaining the standing crops. It is admitted by the lessees that the leases were given on favourable terms, but an explanation of this is offered. The plaint shows that the fields were sold by action on 12th December 1922 in execution of a decree obtained by one Gurmukh. The sale was not confirmed till 31st July 1923. I am told that the sale has subsequently been set aside. The judgment-debtor Sheoram (D. W. 1) states that he had sold his bullocks to pay the debt due to Gurmukh Marwari. Even after the sale of the bullocks the judgment-debtor may have hoped to cultivate the land himself as ho had done in previous years.

4. But finally he had to lease out his lands. This explanation appears to be natural.

5. It is next urged that the absence of the lease deeds is suspicious and is not explained. I remark that it was unnecessary for the defendants to allege that deeds of lease for a single year had been executed. The story that they were lost in the course of the police investigation is quite a natural one. There may be some discrepancies, but the defendants may not remember exactly who had the deeds last. It is clearly stated that the documents were produced before the police, and the plaintiff has not troubled to cross-examine the witnesses on this point or to summon the investigating officer in order to contradict them. It is next pointed out that there are numerous discrepancies regarding the execution of these leases. The witnesses were examined some two and a-half years after the execution. There is much force in the contention of the appellants' counsel that witnesses of this sort make wild statements in cross-examination and that had the story of the leases been false there would have been more efforts at consistency. The learned Judge who heard the witnesses has believed them and I see no reason to disagree. No inference can be drawn from a slip made by the learned Judge who states in para. 10 that defendants 2 to 4 were to have only a one-third share in the crops. The learned Judge himself recorded the evidence and the witnesses state that the terms of the leases were favourable. I agree, then, with the finding that the leases were given on the terms alleged by the defendants.

6. I have next to deal with the point whether the leases are binding. The learned Sub-Judge is clearly mistaken in saying that the leases in question were not for the benefit of the plaintiff-mortgagee. The plaintiff-mortgagee will clearly get the lessor's share of the crops. It has been held that the leases were granted at a later stage when the judgment-debtor finally found he could not arrange for cultivation by himself. Had the leases not been granted there would have been no crops. Batten, A.J.C., in Shri Ganesh v. Pandurang,1918 14 NLR 133 expressed the opinion that if the lea