JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiffs in this suit are the heirs of Miyajan who was brother to Poran, the father of Defendants 2 to 4. Miyajan and Poran were joint tenants of a holding under Defendant No. 1, the landlord. In 1882 Poran's son, the Defendant No. 2, executed a kabuliyat for the holding and has ever since been recognised as the tenant by the landlord. In 1897 the landlord sued Defendant No. 2 for arrears of rent, obtained a decree and attached the entire holding, and the present suit was brought to have it declared that the share of Miyajan inherited by the Plaintiffs is not liable to be sold in execution of that decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and collusion. The Munsif found that Miyajan, up to the time of his death in 1896, was in possession of his share, but that Poran represented the entire holding and failing to perceive anything to lead him to the conclusion that the decree was fraudulent and collusive, he dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the Munsif's order and decreed the suit on the finding that the decree obtained by the Defendant No. 1 cannot be said to be honest and untainted by fraud. 2. This finding the Subordinate Judge bases on the fact that the landlord took the kabuliyat from Defendant No. 2 alone and brought the rent-suit against Defendant No. 2 alone and that this could only have been done with the intention of excluding Miyajan and his heirs whom he knew to be entitled to a share in the holding. It is not, however, disputed that Miyajan for the most part lived away from home and there is admittedly not a title of evidence to shew that he ever paid any part of the rent or ever took any steps to get himself recognised by the landlord as a tenant. He himself acquiesced in the representation of the holding by Poran and even when this suit was brought and the holding attached, the Plaintiffs made no attempt to pay the arrears of rent due on the holding. In these circumstances it was natural for the landlord to assume that Poran represented the tenants of the holding and that he should deal with Poran and with Poran alone. In these circumstances it was natural for the landlord to assume that Poran represented the tenants of the holding and that he should deal with Poran and with Poran alone. The facts to which the Subordinate Judge has adverted as indicative of bad faith are equally consistent with good faith. In our opinion there is not only no evidence of bad faith, but what evidence there is points in a contrary direction. Wo therefore think that the learned Subordinate Judge had no materials on which to base his finding of fraud and collusion. We accordingly reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Munsif. The Plaintiffs will pay costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.