1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who purchased a separate account in a sale held under Act XI (B.C.) of 1859. The first Court gave a decree for joint possession but left open the question as to the identity of the plaint lance with the land in the mahal. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was only a benamdar and, therefore, could not maintain the suit. But be held that, if it had not been for the fact that the plaintiff was a benamdar he would have been entitled to joint possession. He also held that there was no reason for doubting the identity of the suit-land with the land of the mahal. It is conceded by the learned Vakil for the respondent that, since the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported as Muhammad Mahbvb Alt Khan v. Bharat Indu 53 Ind. Cas. 54 : 23 C.W.N. 321 : (1919) M.W.N. 507 (P.C.) the decision of the Subordinate Judge en the question of banaimi cannot be supported. It is also conceded that, in view of the finding that there was no partition, the objection on that score also cannot be supported.
2. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit decreed, in the manner suggested by the learned Subordinate Judge in the closing part of his judgment, with Boats in all Courts.
3. I agree.