1. The case relied on by the Subordinate Judge has been overruled by the Privy Council in Dakhina Mohan Boy v. Saroda Mohan Boy I.L.R., 21 C., 142 and the principles applicable to cases like that now beforeus are laid down. It appears to us that it is common justice that if the plaintiff in good faith made payments to rent and revenue due by the tarwad of the 2nd defendant and thereby saved the land for the benefit of the tarwad on its ultimately establishing its rights thereto, the plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed that sum by the tarwad. If the plaintiff received raesne profits, they should, of course, be taken into account, and equally, if he made payments not due or in excess of what were dug by the tarwad, he would not be entitled to charge them against the tarwad.
2. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge as against defendants 2 to 11 and order him to restore the suit to his tile, and to proceed to dispose of it in accordance with law, taking an account of sums properly paid by the plaintiff for the benefit of the tarwad, and of profits received by the plaintiff from the land. 1st defendant is clearly not liable. His costs in this Court must be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's costs in this Court must be paid by the tarwad.