JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiffs sued to establish their right to the lands of a certain jote. They alleged that they bought the jote at a sale in execution of a decree for rent obtained by them against the 2nd Defendant. The Defendant No. 1 claimed to be in possession of the land under a prior conveyance executed in his favour by the Defendant No. 2. The lower Appellate Court has held (1) that the Plaintiffs had no title, as the decree in execution of which the jote was put up to sale and purchased by them was fraudulently obtained, (2) That the Defendant No. 1 had a good title, as the jote was transferable and he purchased it from the Defendant No. 2 for consideration. The Plaintiffs appeal. On their behalf it has been urged (1) that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in finding the rent decree obtained by the Plaintiffs against Defendant No. 2 to be fraudulent, and (2) that he was wrong in finding on the facts found by him that the jote was a transferable one. 2. The facts of the case are that the jote is an occupancy jote of which the tenant was Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 2 sold it to the Defendant No. 1 and paid a landlord's fee of Re. 1 under sec. 18 of the Tenancy Act, as if it was a raiyati holding held at a fixed rate, which it has been found not to be. Neither of the Defendants gave the Plaintiffs any notice under sec. 73 of the Act. The Plaintiff then sued the Defendant No. 2 for the rent due from September 1894 up to February 1898. They were quite entitled to do so (1) because the Defendant No. 2 was in any case responsible for the rent up to the date of the transfer, viz., the 5th August 1897 and (2) because the Defendant was also liable for the rent claimed for the period subsequent to that date, as the Plaintiffs had received no notice under sec. 73. 3. Now, the Subordinate Judge has held that the decree obtained by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant No. 2 was fraudulent, partly because they sued the Defendant No. 2 instead of the Defendant No. 1 and partly because the Plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 73. 3. Now, the Subordinate Judge has held that the decree obtained by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant No. 2 was fraudulent, partly because they sued the Defendant No. 2 instead of the Defendant No. 1 and partly because the Plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 22 per annum whereas he finds the proper rate was Rs. 14 only. The Plaintiff's explain the higher rate sued for was wrongly claimed on their behalf owing to a mistake of their putwari. But this does not appear to us to be sufficient to constitute fraud. Nearly every Plain tiff claims more than he is entitled to. The question of the rate of rent payable by a tenant is disputed in almost every contested suit for arrears. There seems to be no ground for supposing, and the Subordinate Judge does not find, that the rent claimed was intentionally claimed for the purpose of defrauding either Defendant. We therefore consider that the Judge was not justified in finding that the decree in execution of which the Plaintiffs purchased was a fraudulent one. 4. He was also in error, we think, in finding that the jote in question was transferable. He says: "Both the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defence establishes the local usage of the transferability of such holdings." But he goes on to point out that this usage has only grown up in other putties than that of the Plaintiffs. In the putti of the Plaintiffs the usage does not exist, for the Plaintiffs have always refused to acknowledge the validity of transfers of occupancy holdings, and have taken rent from the transferees only on behalf of the old tenants and given receipts in their names. The Judge says: "The Plaintiffs by their action cannot retard the growth of the custom or usage in the village." But they certainly can do so in their own putti, which is a separate estate bearing the number 843 of the towji. The essence of a usage of transferability is that transfers made to the knowledge of but without the consent of the landlord are valid and must be recognized by him. The essence of a usage of transferability is that transfers made to the knowledge of but without the consent of the landlord are valid and must be recognized by him. But it has not been found, nor as far as we can see is there any evidence, that any such usage was in existence in the Plaintiffs' putti at the time of the transfer by the Defendant No. 2 to the Defendant No. 1. 5. We therefore do not consider that we can support the decree of the Subordinate Judge. We accordingly set it aside and remand the appeal to the Subordinate Judge to be decided by him having regard to these observations. Costs to abide the result.