1. These are appeals by the defendants against the judgments of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 22nd May 1911. The suit was brought by the landlords to recover possession of a certain property held by the defendants, on the ground that the tenants have successfully and without reasonable and probable cause denied the landlords' title in a certain rent suit. The only question is, do the tenants incur forfeiture by their doing so? The argument in this case has been based upon Section 186A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. To whatever class of cases Section 186A may apply it does not apply to this case because no damages have been awarded. Therefore, the position of the plaintiffs is exactly the same as if that section did not exist. The decided cases on this point seem to be clear, notwithstanding the doubt that was thrown upon the case of Srimati Mallika Dassi v. Makham Lal Chowdhury 9 C.W.N. 928 : 2 C.L.J. 389. It is not necessary to go through all the cases which have gone the other way. It is sufficient to say that the cases of Khater Mistri v. Sadruddi Khan 34 C. 922; Sheik Miadhar v. Rajani Kanta Ray 5 Ind. Cas. 708 : 14 C.W.N. 339 and Ekabhar Sheikh v. Hara Bewah 8 Ind. Cas. 660 : 15 C.W.N. 335 : 13 C.L.J. 1 are all authorities for the proposition that a suit of this nature does lie. The case of Srimati Mallika Dassi v. Makham Lal Chowdhury 9 C.W.N. 928 : 2 C.L.J. 389 does not seem to be borne out by the late authorities. That being so, the only other question that has been raised is whether the present plaintiffs can maintain the suit. That clearly they can on findings of fact made by the learned District Judge in the lower Appellate Court. These findings are conclusive, and binding upon us and we must accept them and hold that the plaintiffs in fact represent the whole body of landlords.
2. The present appeals, therefore, fail and must be dismissed with costs.