JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - Upon the best consideration which I am able to give to this case and with every respect for the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Rampini, I am inclined to think, agreeing with Mr. Justice Gupta, that the question of the transferability of the jote in question or of any part of it does not really arise. The dispute in the present case arose in this way. There was a certain jote which was sold for arrears of rent; and after satisfying the claim of the landlord, there was a surplus. The question was who was entitled to that surplus. The original tenant had transferred a portion of the jote to the Plaintiff and the Defendant claims to be an auction-purchaser of the holdings of the original tenant. The Munsif has found,--and the lower Appellate Court has said that the finding was correct,--that the Defendant has failed to make out that he was such auction-purchaser. The sale to the Plaintiff was prior in point of date and was under a registered kobala. The Defendant sued the original tenant and his mortgagee, claiming to be entitled to so much of the surplus proceeds of the sale as represented the portion of the jote of which he was the auction-purchaser and obtained a decree. The present Plaintiff was not a party to that suit and is not bound by the decree. The Munsif found that it was a fraudulent and collusive decree and the lower Appellate Court has found that the Munsif's finding on the merits is correct. The question then is which of the two, the Plaintiff or the Defendant is entitled to so much of the surplus proceeds of the sale, as represents the portion of the jote transferred to the Plaintiff and of which the Defendant says he was a transferee, as auction-purchaser. The landlord is not a party to this suit : he is raising no question about the transferability of the jote : it does not matter to him which of the two claimants gets the money. He has been paid all that is due to him. Under these circumstances I do not see how the question of transferability can properly arise. In all the cases cited the question was between the landlord and tenant. It is at least doubtful upon the pleadings whether it was ever intended to raise the point. He has been paid all that is due to him. Under these circumstances I do not see how the question of transferability can properly arise. In all the cases cited the question was between the landlord and tenant. It is at least doubtful upon the pleadings whether it was ever intended to raise the point. The Munsif has found in favour of the Plaintiffs kobala and of his possession, and this finding has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. In my opinion the judgment of the District Judge affirming that of the Munsif is correct and this appeal ought to be dismissed with costs, 3 gold mohurs for the two hearings.