1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of the Court below by which the suit of the petitioners for refund of money paid by them to the defendant to prevent the sale of a putni taluk under Regulation VIII of 1819, has been dismissed. It is admitted that the putni originally stood in the name of Matangini the mother of the petitioners. In July 1902 she executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner, but they did not take any steps in accordance with the Regulation to have their names registered in the office of the landlord. During the life-time of their mother, they continued to pay rent in her name. Sometime after her death, they made an attempt to pay rent in their own name, but the landlord refused to accept the money. They then made various deposits in Court. The landlord ignored these deposits and proceeded to put up the putni to sale under the Regulation. It was to prevent this impending sale that the money was paid. The case for the petitioners is that money was obtained from them by compulsion, that the landlord ought to have received the sums which from time to time were tendered by the petitioners, and, that at any rate he ought to have withdrawn from Court the sums which were duly deposited. The Small Cause Court Judge has held that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and that inasmuch as they did not register their names under Regulation VIII of 1819, the landlord was not bound to receive any rent from them and was entitled to bring the putni to sale. In this view, he has dismissed the suit. In our opinion, there can be no possible question that the decree made by the Court below is correct.
2. It was held by this Court in the case of Raghub Chunder Banerjee v. Brogonath Koondoo Chowdhry 14 W.R. 489 that where arrears of putni rent were due, in applying to the Collector to bring the property to sale, the zemindar need not recognise any one except registered putnidar. The same view was subsequently affirmed in the case of Gyanoda Kantho Roy Bahadur v. Bramomoyi Dasi 17 C. 162. In this case, the question arose, whether failure on the part of the transferee of a putni to get himself registered in the office of the zemindar, absolved the transferor from the liability to pay putni rent. The learned Judges discussed the terms of Sections 5 and 6 of Regulation VIII of 1819 and then proceeded to observe as follows: 'Having Regard to these provisions, it seems to us that the purchaser in the present case ought to have applied to the zemindar to register the transfer of the tenure, and at the same time to have paid or tendered the prescribed fee, and had she does so and also furnished the security which the zemindar was entitled to demand, the zemindar could not have refused to register the transfer. The purchaser, however, did nothing of the kind, and, therefore, the zemindar was not bound to register the transfer or recognise the purchaser as the tenant, and under these circumstances, we think that the plaintiff has still a right to look to the ostensible tenants, that is, to the defendants in the present suit, for her rent.' This view is in harmony with the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Luckhinarain Mitter v. Khettro Pal Singh Roy 20 W.R. 380. In the case, the question arose as to the position of an assignee of a durputni, and it was held that 'until the assignment has been registered or the assignee has been accepted by the putnidar as his tenant, the assignor is not discharged from liability, and such liability may be enforced by the sale of the durputni taluk in execution of a decree against him for the rent.' Reliance, however, was placed by the learned Vakil for the petitioners upon the case of Musammat Tara Soonduree Debia v. Radha Soondur 24W.R. 63 in which it was ruled that where a zemindar puts up a putni for sale under Regulation VIII of 1819, knowing that the rent due to him has been paid into Court by the putnidar, the sale is invalid, even if the notice served on the zemindar was illegally served. This decision is clearly distinguishable, as the deposit was made by the putnidar. The only defect in the proceeding was that notice of the deposit was not duly served on the zemindar. The zemindar, however, was aware of the fact of the deposit, and notwithstanding the fact that deposit had been made to his knowledge, proceeded to sell the property. In the case before us, the deposit has been by a person whom the zemindar is not bound to recognise. We must, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Court below is correct, and its decision cannot be assailed. The Rule is discharged with costs, two gold mohurs.