JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff in this suit purchased certain jotes from Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by a deed of sale, dated 8th Pous 1299, and in that deed there was a stipulation that the arrears which were due to the landlord up to the time of sale were to be paid by the vendors, failing which, if the vendee should have to make the payment, he would be entitled to recover the amount as a loss sustained by him. Subsequent to the Plaintiffs purchase, in the same year 1299 the landlords brought three suits for recovery of the arrears due for 1298 and a portion of 1299, that is to say, for arrears due prior to the purchase by the Plaintiff, and also for the rents which had accrued due subsequent to the purchase, and obtained decrees. The Defendants failed to satisfy the decrees and accordingly property to the extent of 51 bighas odd which was covered by the deed of sale to the Plaintiff was sold and purchased by the decree-holders. The amount of arrears for which the property was sold appears to have been in the three suits Rs. 172-15as. It seems that the Plaintiff made an application under sec. 311, C.P.C., to have the sale set aside, but it was held that he had no locus standi and his application was refused. He accordingly brought this suit to recover possession of the land on the ground that the sale was a collusive sale brought about by the landlords in collusion with the Defendants, who, subsequent to the sale, themselves obtained resettlement, or, on failure to obtain that relief, to obtain damages for the loss sustained by him by the Bale of the property. The Munsif gave the Plaintiff a decree for Rs. 800. He held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the sale was brought about by collusion between the landlord and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and he was of opinion that the Plaintiff' was entitled under the stipulation in the deed of sale and also under the general principles of justice to recover from the Defendants the value of the land which had been sold in satisfaction of the decree and the value of the land with the interest due on that amount was held to be Rs. 800 2. 800 2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif and has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. He has held that, as the arrears for which the jotes were put up for sale were partly arrears which accrued due after the Plaintiff's purchase, the Plaintiff by his own negligence contributed to the property being sold. He has further held that when the Plaintiff was aware at the time of the sale that there were arrears due on the jotes, it was his duty under sec. 73 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to have applied to the landlords to have his name registered as a tenant and then he would have been the person who would have been sued for the arrears and it would then have been possible for him to pay off his dues. On that ground he held that the Munsif was wrong in the view he took that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover under the general principles of equity and justice, and he further held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the stipulation of the kabala because, as a matter of fact, he had not paid the arrears which were due prior to his purchase on the 8th Pous 1299. 3. The Plaintiff has appealed to this Court and, in support of his appeal, it has been contended that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the Plaintiff contributed to the sale by negligently failing to pay in the rent due subsequent to his purchase. It has been suggested that as he was not a registered tenant, he could not pay the rent due after Pous 1299 and until the arrears prior to that date had been paid, the arrear accruing due subsequent to that date would not have been received. It is contended, therefore, that the sale was in fact the result of the Defendants' failure to pay off the arrears due to the landlords which they agreed to pay under the stipulation in the kobala. It appears to us in this case that the sale which resulted in the loss to the Plaintiff of 51 bighas odd of land which he had purchased from the Defendants was due mainly, if not entirely, to the failure on the part of the Defendants to comply with the stipulation contained in the kobala. It appears to us in this case that the sale which resulted in the loss to the Plaintiff of 51 bighas odd of land which he had purchased from the Defendants was due mainly, if not entirely, to the failure on the part of the Defendants to comply with the stipulation contained in the kobala. As the result of this failure has been that the Plaintiff, though he has not paid the arrears due in cash, has sustained a loss in property which has been sold to satisfy these arrears, we think that the Plaintiff is entitled if not under the strict words, at all events under the spirit of the terms of the kobala to recover from the Defendants the sum which was due as arrears from them, to pay off which property of the Plaintiff has been sold. He is also entitled to interest on that sum from the date of the sale. The Plaintiff has undoubtedly suffered a loss in property, though not in cash and we think that he is entitled to be reimbursed by the Defendants for the loss which he has sustained from this failure to comply with the terms of the kobala. We are unable, therefore, to support the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. We accordingly set aside that judgment and decree and direct that the case be sent back to him in order that it may be ascertained what amounts in the decrees obtained in the rent suits were due for arrears prior to the 8th Pous 1299 and a decree given to the Plaintiff, for such amounts, when they have been ascertained, with interest at the ordinary rate from the date of dispossession (the 12th June 1896). The Plaintiff will also be entitled to recover from the Defendants proportionate costs in the lower Courts, but, so far as the costs of this Court are concerned, we think that each party should bear his own costs.