Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (Feb. 9, 1900) reversing a decree of the District Court of Jessore (Feb. 1, 1898), which had reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna (Sept. 16, 1897). The suit was brought by the appellant and two other plaintiffs against the respondent Ram Taran Chatterji, and one Hemoda Kant Roy as a pro forma defendant, to recover, under the circumstances stated in their Lordships judgment, rent and cesses claimed by the appellant and his co-plaintiffs in respect of a property known as chuck Khatali, of which the appellant and his co-plaintiffs were admittedly the owners, and of which Ram Taran was admittedly the tenant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. He considered that it was an indirect attempt to split up a permanent tenure; that it was neither alleged nor proved that defendant ever paid rent for chuck Khatali as forming a distinct and separate tenure. He held that the appellant was not entitled to rent as claimed by him, because his rights could not be affected by the resumption of chuck Khatali by Government so long as the lessor or his representatives held the resumed lands under settlement from Government. If plaintiffs succeeded in their claim, the rent of appellants permanent ganti with a fixed settled rent by contract would in substance suffer an increase of Rs.800 odd. He found that chuck Khatali was never separated from the parent ganti and formed into an independent holding; that it was not agreed that the defendant would pay rent for it separately. The District Court held that this was a suit for rent as fixed in the settlement proceedings in respect of the land which fell within the new mehal created by the Government after the resumption proceedings, and that there was no question as to the amount of the rent being other than that which was fixed by the settlement proceedings ; and he held that Ram Tarans holding in the new estates was a new holding quite independent of the old one. He gave the appellant a decree for his one-third share of the rent thereof, the co-plaintiffs having admitted their receipt of two-thirds. The High Court reversed this decree and dismissed the suit. He gave the appellant a decree for his one-third share of the rent thereof, the co-plaintiffs having admitted their receipt of two-thirds. The High Court reversed this decree and dismissed the suit. They said " In this state of facts, and in the absence of any finding or allegation that Hemoda Kant Roy, the vendor of the plaintiff Pria Nath Das and of Kali Prosunno Ghose or his vendees, ever received rent separately in respect of the portions of the ganti lands that fell within the old and the new estate, it is difficult to see how Pria Nath Das can in this suit recover any portion of the rent, especially when he has not made Kali Prosunno Ghose a party to it." " No finding arrived at in this suit as to the rights of the parties and as to the mode in which the rent should be apportioned or adjusted can be binding on Kali Prosunno Ghose. And if that is so, it would be obviously unfair to the defendant to pass a decree for rent against him upon the basis of any adjustment of the rent which it may be open to Kali Prosunno Ghose to upset. The view we take is in accordance with that taken by this Court in Bindu Bashini Dasi v. Peari Mohun Bose." (( 1891) Ind. L. R. 20 Calc. 107.) De Gruyther, for the appellant, contended that as the purchaser of the chuck Khatali he was entitled in the suit as framed to recover his proportion of the rent due in respect thereof. Regard being had to the terms of the pottah, to the effect of the resumption proceedings, and to the resettlement of the land in suit with the appellants vendors, the High Court ought to have held that the respondent was liable for the rent of the lands in the new holding, independently of the rent payable in respect of the original ganti. So far as Khatali was concerned, the old tenure was abolished and a new one created. He referred to Bengal Act VIII. of 1879, s. 7 (c) and s. 10. The suit being under the settlement and not under the pottah, there was no necessity to sue for an apportionment of rent, or to make all the parties interested in the lands comprised in the pottah parties to it. He referred to Bengal Act VIII. of 1879, s. 7 (c) and s. 10. The suit being under the settlement and not under the pottah, there was no necessity to sue for an apportionment of rent, or to make all the parties interested in the lands comprised in the pottah parties to it. Those interested in the rent under the settlement were parties; Kali Prosunno Ghose was one of the owners of the estate in which the ganti tenure was situated, but it was unnecessary to make him a co-plaintiff as he was not interested in the rent in respect of the resettled lands. C. W. Arathoon, for the respondent Ram Taran Chatterji, was not heard. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ROBERTSON. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent of a property known as chuck Khatali. The proceedings have an appearance of complexity which does not belong to the facts. In 1867 Raja Baroda Kant Roy, from whom the appellants title is derived, executed a pottah, creating, in favour of the respondent Chatterji, an estate of permanent ganti tenure in mouzah Pankhali, which included along with other chucks the chuck Khatali now in dispute. A bonus of Rs.7500 was paid for this grant; and the annual rent to be paid for the whole of the lands was Rs.2300. It was known at the time of the pottah that the Government had right to resume, and was likely to resume, some part of the lands, and the following clause is part of the pottah— "If there be any lawsuit with Government or with any person regarding (torn) the proprietary right of any other part of the land, and if any (torn) steps are necessary to be taken, then such steps shall be taken by me. God forbid if I lose the said suit and if the land of that suit go to the possession of another person (torn), then the rent of the said land at the rate prevailing in the mehal for the jami-jumma thereof shall be deducted from the aforesaid jumma of Rs.2300. Proper (torn) should be taken by me whenever any dispute shall arise regarding proprietary right. Proper (torn) should be taken by me whenever any dispute shall arise regarding proprietary right. Except the above, on no other account abatement or enhancement shall be made regarding the aforesaid mowrussi mokurruri jumma of Rs.2300, and neither I nor my heirs shall be competent to enhance the rent of (— hundred torn indistinct) and neither you nor your heirs shall be competent (torn) to claim abatement of the aforesaid fixed jumma at any time."" In 1882 the Government did in fact resume, inter alia, the chuck Khatali. The Government did not, however, take khas possession of Khatali, but granted it in temporary settlement to the heirs of Raja Baroda Kant Roy, he being now dead. The period of settlement was twenty years from 1884, 1904 being " the year fixed for the expiry of settlements in the Presidency Division "; and the rent fixed for chuck Khatali was Rs.850. The theory of the plaint, which was filed on April 13, 1897, is that the effect of these settlement proceedings was that the respondent Chatterji became liable to the owner of Khatali for the rent fixed in the settlement. Accordingly, the plaint ignores entirely the pottah of 1867, and rests the liability of Chatterji on the settlement alone; and the present appellant maintains his right to sue alone (he being purchaser of Khatali only), without the action being sued by the owners of the other lands which formed parts of the ganti tenure of 1867, and for which the lump annual sum of Rs.2300 was the rent. (It is true that originally there was a plurality of plaintiffs, the two widows, who are now formal respondents and into whose position it is unnecessary to enter, having been plaintiffs, but Kali Prosunno Ghose, who is now owner of part of the land granted in 1867, was never a plaintiff.) To the plaint thus Laid the respondent Chatterji opposed, as his substantial defence, his ganti right of 1867, as constituting his title to the chuck Khatali; and, with reference to the demand for Rs.850, he said, in his written statement— " The present defendant does not hold any jami-jumma at a rent Rs.850 2a. 4p. 4p. appertaining to chuck Khatali subordinate to the plaintiffs, and he (defendant) did not bind himself by any engagement or pay rent regarding such jami-jumma either to the plaintiffs or to their predecessors, and he (defendant) is not bound to pay rent as above to the plaintiffs." The Subordinate Judge of Khulna, before whom the action came, dismissed the suit with costs on September 16, 1897. On appeal, the Court of the District Judge of Jessore varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge ; and on further appeal to the High Court, that Court reversed the lower Appellate Court and restored the decree of the first Court. In their Lordships judgment the defence of the respondent Chatterji was well founded. The settlement proceedings of 1884 cannot be held to have abrogated the rights of that respondent under the pottah, so long as the Raja Baroda Kant Roy and his heirs were themselves in a position to let him have the lands. In fact, the resumption by Government did not disturb the possession either of the Bajas heirs or of Chatterji. The mere fact of resumption cannot be held to have brought to an end the rights of the respondent Chatterji under the pottah, for the pottah itself recognises the precarious nature of the grantors title, and provides against the loss of possession should that be the result. The appellant founded mainly on the 10th section of the Bengal Act VIII. of 1879. The claim of the respondent Chatterji in no way conflicts with the operation of this section, or with the rights of the Government under it. The section is plainly intended to fix for the future the liability of such undertenants as may enter into possession. If it had seemed good to the Government to take the land into their own khas possession, or to settle it on strangers to the contract with the respondent Chatterji, then the recorded rent would have been the rate of payment by that respondent. But the lands having been settled on the heirs of the Raja who granted the pottah, the Act does not interfere with the contractual rights of the subordinate holder. Now, the period of the settlement being still current, the ganti right still subsists, and the respondent is only liable for the rent payable under the pottah. But the lands having been settled on the heirs of the Raja who granted the pottah, the Act does not interfere with the contractual rights of the subordinate holder. Now, the period of the settlement being still current, the ganti right still subsists, and the respondent is only liable for the rent payable under the pottah. The appellant endeavoured to make out that the respondent Chatterji had, by his letter of April 11, 1886, made himself liable for the rent of Rs.850; but their Lordships agree with the Courts below in considering that document to be wholly insufficient to lead to this result. The High Court have rested their judgment on the somewhat narrow ground that, Kali Prosunno Ghose not being a party to the suit, the appellant could not obtain the decree sought. It appears to their Lordships that this really implies the broader ground upon which they proceed. If the theory of the suit were right, and the settlement of 1884 created liability against the respondent Chatterji for Rs.850 of rent to the owner of the chuck Khatali, then the appellant would not require the concurrence of the owner of another and different chuck. It is because the liability of the respondent Chatterji is not under the settlement, but for a lump sum under the contract of 1867, that all in right of the lands, for which the lump sum is the rent, are necessary parties in any action for rent for chuck Khatali. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs of the respondent Chatterji.