JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The first point raised is that this suit is in contravention of sec. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was a revenue sale and the lessors of the present Plaintiffs purchased the property. They brought a suit to annul the incumbrances; the Defendants to that suit being certain under-tenure-holders. They did not make all the co-sharers parties. That suit was decreed against the then Defendants. The auction purchasers then granted a lease to the present Plaintiffs and the present Plaintiffs have instituted this suit to get rid of the incumbrances as against the co-sharers who were not made parties to the first suit. It is said that the present Defendants were not made parties to the first suit, because they were not known to be co-sharers at the time. It is now contended that the present suit contravenes sec. 43 of the Code. I see nothing in sec. 43 to prevent the Plaintiffs from bringing the present suit against the co-sharers who were not parties to the original suit. The first point fails. The second point is that the lease is invalid. The lease, apparently, was granted by an administrator, and it is said that, having regard to sec. 90 of the Probate and Administration Act, the lease is a bad lease and is void, inasmuch as it is for a term exceeding five years. There is nothing in the section which makes the lease void. It is reasonably clear, having regard to sub-sec. 4 of sec. 90, that it is voidable only at the instance of any person interested in the property; and when the legislature says that it is voidable only, it indicates that, as between the lessor and lessee, the lease is not void. The lease therefore is good. 2. As regards the third point, with every respect to the learned pleader for the Appellants, I cannot appreciate it. Moreover, it was not taken in the Court below. 3. As regards the mesne profits, I think the judgment of the Court below is quite right. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Geidt, J. I concur.