1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. His substantial defences in the Courts below were, first, that he had been dispossessed from a part of his holding, namely, plot No. 3 in the kabuliyat which evidences the creation of the tenancy, secondly, that be had never been put into possession of another plot, tamely, plot No. 7, and thirdly, that the suit was defective by reason of non-joinder of some of the tenants as defendants in the suit.
2. As regard plot No. 3 the finding of fact is that there has been no dispossession of the tenant defendants from that portion of plot No. 3 leaded out to them.
3. With regard to plot No. 7, the finding similarly is that no part of plot No. 7 was ever included in the holding.
4. The contention of the tenant-appellant that has been seriously pressed before us is one with regard to defeat of parties. It appears that the original tenant of the holding in question was ore Hemat. He died leaving as his heirs four sons and two daughters. The present suit for rent has been brought against two of the sons of Hemat and the hairs of a third son who died subsequently to the death of Hemat. As all the descendants of Hemat have not been pined on the record as tenants, it is said that this suit should be dismissed. In support of this contention we have been referred to the case of Kashi Kinkar Sen v. Satyendra Nath Bhadro 7 Ind. Cas. 840 : 15 C.W.N. 191 : 12 C.L.J. 642 at p. 645 and also to the cases reported as Krishna Das Boy v. Kali Tara Chowdhurani 44 Ind. Cas. 80 : 22 C.W.N. 289 and Siba Krishna Sinha Sarma v. Jag at Chandra 45 Ind. Cas. 732 and the case of Shaikh Sahed v. Krishna Mohan Basak 35 Ind. Cas. 563 : 24 C.L.J. 371. But we are of opinion that these cases may be distinguished from the present case and we think that on the fasts of the present case we should follow the decisions in the cases of Lalit Mohan Sinha Roy v. Haran Chand Khamrui 36 Ind. Cas. 243, Subashi Dassi v. Raj Krishna Roy 23 C.W.N. xxvii (27) Notes, and also in the case of Chamatkarini Dasi v. Triguna Nath Sardar 19 Ind. Cas. 989 : 17 C.W.N. 833. We do so all the more readily because there is in this case the finding of fast, arrived at by the Court of first instance and accepted by the Subordinate Judge in the Court of first appeal, that the four defendants in the present case are the tenants in actual possession of the land and also because in the year 1909 a decree for rent was obtained against these defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. It should further be observed here that the rent for which the present suit is brought accrued due not in the time of Hemat but in the time of the present defendants.
5. For these reasons we dismiss this appeal with costs.