1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, dated the 28th July 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patnakhali. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover certain rents in arrear. The plaintiffs claimed as being entitled to the whole 16-annas rent and they claimed that in these circumstances. The plaintiffs had formerly a two anna odd share in the howla. They brought a suit to recover rent of their own share and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, they brought the holding to sale and purchased it themselves. They said that they re-settled the property with the defendant and that, therefore, they were entitled to receive and recover the whole rent. The facts found by the learned Subordinate Judge are these: Although the defendant was not entitled to question the validity of the sale in execution of his own holding as he had not objected in the execution proceedings, still when the plaintiffs became the lessors of the defendant after the purchase, they were under the ordinary obligation of a lessor to secure to the tenant peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the whole holding. The learned Judge has found--and it seems to me correctly found--first of all, that the plaintiffs did not give quiet possession to the defendant of the whole of this holding and that is shown, as the learned Judge says, by the fact that the other co-sharer landlords declined to recognize the purchase made by the plaintiffs and had instituted and successfully prosecuted suits for their own portions of the rent. The nett result, if weaccept the view of the plaintiffs, is that it is a case of equitable estoppel as between the defendant and the plaintiffs as to the right of the plaintiffs to recover the whole rent and the defendant is at the same time to be held liable to pay over again the 13-annas odd of the rent to the co-sharers of the plaintiffs in respect of the howla right. That isneither equitable nor estoppel. Obviously, it is not equitable that a man by any argument like this should be precluded from putting forth before the Court what are the true facts. Obviously, it is not a case of estoppel. You cannot extend the estoppel that arises by reason of the purchase in execution of the interest (formerly held by the defendant) to the new interest that the plaintiffs created in favour of the defendant when they purported to lease to him the whole of the land after the sale. The fact found by the learned Judge is that the plaintiffs had never performed their new contract of tenancy, inasmuch as they never secured to the defendant peaceful possession of the property. That is borne out by the fact that suits were brought against the defendant by the other co-sharer landlords and he had to pay their proportionate shares of the rent in addition to the rent claimed by the plaintiffs after the purchase of the holding in execution. I think, on those facts, the learned Judge arrived at a correct conclusion. Therefore, the present appeal must be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree.