1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 2nd May 1914, modifying the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of a plot of laid. The facts found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court are wholly in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, except as regards one particular matter. One Krishna Kishore Ghose died leaving four sons and a widow. He left a Will appointing his widow, the defendant No. 4 in this case, as his executrix. The defend-ants Nos. 1 and 2 held the disputed land as tenants under the estate of Krishna Kishore Ghose. The defendant No. 4 as executrix brought a suit to recover the rent in arrear against the present defendants Nos. 1 and .2 and obtained a decree Prior to the decree, one of the sons of Krishna Kishore Ghose by name Jatindra died and the defendant No. 4 succeeded to his share. After the decree, had been obtained the property was brought to sale in execution and purchased by the defendant No. 4, the executrix. In the meantime, disputes having arisen in the family, a deed of family arrangement had been executed between the members thereof and, under the terms of that deed, the mother, that is, the defendant No. 4, the executrix, released all her interest in the estate of the deceased Jatindra to one of the Other sons, namely, Upendra. The plaintiff has got the entire interest of Upendra and the other co-sharers in the property. The only point that has been decided in this case against the plaintiff is this. That under the terms -of the deed Of family arrangement, Upendra did not acquire the interest of Jatindra in the land purchased by the executrix in execution of the rent decree and that, therefore, the plaintiff has got no interest in it. The View of the learned Judge was that that was an interest that accrued to the executrix after the date of the deed of release and could hot be affected by the terms of the deed. I do not agree in the view of the learned Judge. His finding that the decree was obtained by the defendant No. 4 as executrix and that the beneficial owners of the estate were the real owners of the decree seems to be right. The question is, who were the beneficial owners? It may be noticed that the defendant No. 4 is a party to this suit and she does not set' Up any claim to this land, a share in which has been awarded to her by the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. But it is manifest that the deed of release passed any interest that the defendant No. 4 had in the estate of Jatindra. The document is in the form of an English deed. The defendant No. 4 the widow of Krishna Kishore Ghose and his executrix released and surrendered 'all that undivided one-fourth share which was of the said Jatindra Mohan Ghose of, in and to the estate of the said Krishna Kishore Mianwali, dated the 24th February 1914, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
2. Dr. Shuja-ud-Din, for the Appellants.
3. Lala Ude Bhan, for the Respondents.