1. These three appeals arise out of three suits for recovery of arrears of rent. Suits Nos. 5 and 6 of 1916, out of which appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of the lower Appellate Court arose, related to the arrears of rent in respect of certain chaukidari chakran lands in a number of mouzas alleged by the plaintiff to have been duly settled with the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji and suit No. 1 of 1918 out of which appeal No. 97 of the lower Appellate Court arose, related to the arrears of rent of certain chaukidari chakran lands in the said mouzas with the exception of mouza Harishpur. The periods covered by the three suits were different. It has been found by both the Courts below that the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji executed the kabuliyat referred to in the plaints in the said threes suits in favour of the plaintiff, and that, the said defendant had obtained possession of all the chaukidari chakran lands in the patni mehal concerned with the exception of the lands in mouza Harishpur. The contention in suit No. 1 of 1918 of the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji amongst others was that one Sreemati Nagendrabala Chaudhurani who had brought a suit for declaration of title against the plaintiff having been made a party defendant in these suits, they were bad for misjoinder of parties. The contention of the defendant Sreemati Nagendrabala Chaudhurani was that no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the plaintiff and herself and that accordingly these suits in question should be dismissed with costs. The appeal No. S.A. 1033 of 1920 before us was a joint, appeal on behalf of the said two defendants, but Dr. Jadunath Kanjilal who argued them, in reply to a question by the Court, made it clear that he elected to argue this appeal only on behalf of the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji and that he did not desire to appear on behalf of the defendant Sreemati Nagendrabala Chaudhurani. Dr. Kanjilal's contention was that the lease in favour of the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji was void, inasmuch as it had been found in another suit that Prabhat Chandra Chatterji was merely the benamidar of the defendant Sreemati Nagendrabala Chaudhurani and that therefore the plaintiff was incompetent to maintain the present suit. He argued that by accepting a deed of conveyance in fee and going into possession, a grantee is not estopped to deny the title or seisin of his grantor unless he claims under the deed. The argument advanced by the appellant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji which really was an argument on behalf of Nagendrabala Chaudhurani, may have to be considered in a properly constituted suit by the parties; we think, however, so far as these suits for arrears of rent are concerned, we must proceed on the basis that inasmuch as the execution of the document, regulating the rights of the parties which have been produced by the plaintiff is not denied by the defendant Prabhat Chandra Chatterji, these suits for arrears of rent should succeed, there being no real answer to them, and we agree with the reasons1 given by the lower Appellate Court in its judgment. In this view of the matter, these appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs.