JUDGMENT 1. The Appellants in these cases who were Defendants in the Court of first instance sued to obtain rent from certain tenants who deposited the amounts in suit, pleading that they were tenants of a third party and not of the Appellants. The matter therefore came under sec. 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and notice was issued to the third party whom the Appellants alleged to be their landlord. That person has now brought the suits now before us in appeal. In his plaint he claimed the money by reason of possession through receipt of rent from those tenants and also by reason of his title to the property; but it appears that in the course of the trial he withdrew his claim on the ground of his title. The Defendants, the Appellants, now before us, denied the possession of the Plaintiff. They stated that they were in possession and they claimed that the title to the property was with them and not with the Plaintiff. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that as the Plaintiff had withdrawn his right to obtain rent by reason of this title the suit could not be tried. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has remanded the cases for trial on the ground that it was sufficient for the purposes of these suits to determine whether the tenants who had deposited the rents were the Plaintiff's tenants in regard to the particular lands. 2. We are not prepared to hold that the order of the Subordinate Judge is absolutely correct, for, in a suit of this description it may or may not be necessary to determine the matter in dispute merely on the question of possession of the party claiming receipt of rent without any finding in regard to the title to the particular property. We entirely agree in the view of the law as explained in the case of Rubiunnissa v. Guljan Bibi ILR 17 Cal. 829 (1890) that where disputes arise as between rival claimants to land in respect of the rent due, the parties are at liberty to have the dispute tried between them as to title and also as to possession. We entirely agree in the view of the law as explained in the case of Rubiunnissa v. Guljan Bibi ILR 17 Cal. 829 (1890) that where disputes arise as between rival claimants to land in respect of the rent due, the parties are at liberty to have the dispute tried between them as to title and also as to possession. But, in a case of this description, it seems to us that the Plaintiff is at liberty to claim the right to rent by reason of his being in possession if he can show that he has for some reasonable time been in receipt of such rent. In the present case, the possession of the Plaintiffs is disputed by the Defendants-Appellants, and therefore it would be necessary to have that issue tried first. If it should be decided in favour of the Defendants this suit must fail because the Plaintiff has not relied on his title. But, if on the other hand that issue be decided in favour of the Plaintiff, it will then be necessary to consider the issues as to title raised by the Defendants and in that case the Defendants will have to prove the title to the property which has been found to be in the possession of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff will be entitled to adduce evidence to the contrary. Unless the cases were so tried, it would be possible for a stranger to bring a suit for rent and to put the landlord in possession of the property by receipt of previous rents to the proof of his title without having in the first instance shown that he has any right to question that title or to obtain rents from the tenants of the property. The order of the Subordinate Judge remanding these cases is not sufficient for the purposes of the suits. The question of possession between the parties by receipt of rent for a time reasonably sufficient to be regarded as possession must first be tried and if that be decided in favour of the Plaintiff and not until then the question of title must be tried. The orders of the Subordinate Judge remanding the cases for trial on the merits will be affirmed with modification to that extent. 3. The costs of the appeals will abide the result. The orders of the Subordinate Judge remanding the cases for trial on the merits will be affirmed with modification to that extent. 3. The costs of the appeals will abide the result. As the suits have been a considerable time before the Court the Munsif is directed to hold the trial with as little delay as possible.