JUDGMENT Woodroffe, J. - There being some doubt whether this suit was maintainable, it was on the 9th September 1903 admitted for settlement of issues only and is now before me for that purpose. The action is admittedly of a novel character. The Plaintiff is a secured creditor of two persons, the Defendant Aghore Nath Chatterjee and Gouri Kanta Burman, deceased. These persons are said by the Plaintiff to have become partners in respect of a venture intended to be carried out in premises leased to them by the eighth Defendant. Damodar Burman. The premises were subsequently acquired by Government and the compensation money payable to the lessees was, it is alleged, partnership as sets and on these assets the Plaintiff's debt is charged. The Plaintiff says that he is a joint creditor of the alleged partnership business and that as such he and other creditors of the partnership are entitled to priority of payment over the separate creditors of the individual partners. Certain of the latter have applied for and one has obtained an order for payment to him of his debt out of the compensation money in Court, The plaint seeks an injunction against such payment, Other separate creditors have attached the fund. All the creditors except the Defendant No. 16 have obtained decrees. The plaint seeks not merely the declaration and enforcement of the Plaintiff's right but also those of all the Defendants who are creditor; of the Defendant Aghore Nath Chatterjee and the second and third Defendants, the sons of Gouri Kanta Barman. 2. The first objection taken is that the plaint discloses no cause of action I think, however, this is not so. 3. The Plaintiff claims that he, as a joint and secured creditor of the alleged partnership, has priority of recourse against he fund in Court belonging to his debtors. Prima facie this is so if there be a partnership as is alleged. The fact is denied by creditor Defendants Nos 4,5 and 6, all of whom have in their own suits applied for and one of whom (Defendant No. 1) has obtained an order for payment to him. Prima facie this is so if there be a partnership as is alleged. The fact is denied by creditor Defendants Nos 4,5 and 6, all of whom have in their own suits applied for and one of whom (Defendant No. 1) has obtained an order for payment to him. This the Plaintiff says they are not entitled to at any rate until he, as a creditor of the partnership, is paid and that if effect be given to that order which was passed in a suit to which he was not a party he will be damnified. The Piaintiff is entitled to raise this point so far as it touches his own rights and to have an adjudication thereon. 4. He, however, goes much Further What he claims for himself, he also claims for others, namely, the Defendants Nos. 8, 9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18 who, he says, as joint creditors are entitled to the same rights as himself. A plaintiff can ordinarily only sue to establish his own rights. Put when suing, as he does in this case for himself only, he has no right to obtain an adjudication as to the claims of others. It may be that when in order to give the Plaintiff the appropriate relief to which he is entitled it is necessary to declare the rights of the Defendants those rights will be declared. But this is not the case here. The Plaintiff claims to be a joint creditor of the alleged partnership. He says that the Defendants NOS. 8-12, 14-18 are similarly situated. They of course accept the position assigned to them. There is, therefore, upon this point no issue between him and them. Again assuming the truth of the Plaintiff's case, namely, that the alleged partnership creditors are entitled to priority of payment there are admittedly ample funds for that purpose. The claims of these creditors amount to Rs. 68,790 and the fund in Court is stated to be Rs, 1,53,000, So no question of priority arises us between the joint creditors themselves. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary, so far as the Plaintiff is concerne, to enter upon an enquiry as to the claims of the Defendants alleged By him to be joint creditors and against whom he raises no issue. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary, so far as the Plaintiff is concerne, to enter upon an enquiry as to the claims of the Defendants alleged By him to be joint creditors and against whom he raises no issue. Prayer (e) of the plaint runs as follows:- That it may be declared that the Plaintiff as one of the joint creditors of the Defendant Aghore Nath Chatterjee and the said Gouri Kanta Burman, deceased, and as a creditor whose debt is charged upon the said compensation money of the said Aghore Nath Chatterjee and Gouri Kanta Burman, deceased, is entitled to be paid out of the said compensation money in the hands of the said receiver in preference and priority to the separate creditors of the Defendant Aghore Nath Chatterjee and the said Gouri Kanta Burman, deceased, and that this Hon Court may be pleased to pass such orders for satisfaction of the Plaintiff's decree as may be necessary." The Plaintiff, however, also asks in prayer (d) "that the question of priority amongst the Defendants the creditors of the Defendant Aghore Nath Chatterjee and the said Gouri Kanta Burman may be ascertained and declared. 5. What the Plaintiff wants in do is to fight the cause of the co-Defendants whom he alleges to be in the same situation as himself and to raise an issue between them and their co-Defendants-the decision of which issue is not necessary in order to give him the relief to which alone he can claim to be entitled, namely, a declaration of his debt, its priority and an order for payment. The real issue is that which is raised between him and those Defendants who are alleged by him to be separate creditors and payment of whose claim is as such separate creditors sought to be postponed to his claim, Here again all that is necessary to decide is, whether the Plaintiff is a joint creditor of the alleged partnership and are the Defendants alleged to be separate creditors such and do they rank after the Plaintiff. How they rank as between themselves provided they rank after him is immaterial to the Plaintiff. The suit must be strictly limited to the ascertainment of the Plaintiffs rights. There is no doubt that what the Plaintiff wants and what he thought he would get in instituting this suit and there is considerable force in Mr. How they rank as between themselves provided they rank after him is immaterial to the Plaintiff. The suit must be strictly limited to the ascertainment of the Plaintiffs rights. There is no doubt that what the Plaintiff wants and what he thought he would get in instituting this suit and there is considerable force in Mr. Sinha's argument that the suit being substantially of a character which cannot be maintained should be dismissed I think, however, I ought not to do this if 1 can find, as 1 do, that the portions of the claim which are not maintainable can be severed from those which I hold can be maintained. I settle therefore the following issues:- (1) Was there a partnership between Aghore Nath Chatterjee and Gouri Kama Burman as alleged in the plaint. (2) If so, was the Plaintiff a joint creditor of such partnership. (3) And is his claim as such joint creditor entitled to priority of payment over the claims of those poisons whom he alleges to he separate creditors of the alleged partnership. (4) Are the Defendants Nos, 4,5,6,7,13,19-26 separate creditors of the alleged partnership; (5) Is the plaintiff a secured creditor, and if so, is he entitled to priority of payment as against the creditor Defendants and which of them. 6. I have excluded Defendant No. 8 from issue 4, as I gather from the plaint, that though not mentioned in the partnership decree as a creditor of the partnership he is now allowed to be such, but if this is nos so he will be included in that issue. 7. I hold that the suit, so far as it seeks an adjudication of the rights of the defendants as between themselves, in particular, in so far as it seeks to affirm the right of creditors 8-12, 14-18 to priority of payment over the other creditor Defendants, is not maintainable. 8. I may mention here that Mr. Knight sought to raise an issue as to whether the fund in Court belongs to Gouri Kanta Burman alone, his alleged partner having already been overpaid : in other words, whether the creditors of Aghore Nath Chatterjee are entitled to be paid at all. I can find no such case in any of the pleadings. Knight sought to raise an issue as to whether the fund in Court belongs to Gouri Kanta Burman alone, his alleged partner having already been overpaid : in other words, whether the creditors of Aghore Nath Chatterjee are entitled to be paid at all. I can find no such case in any of the pleadings. On the contrary the plaint appears to assume that all creditors have a right of recourse to the fund though It maintains that the alleged joint creditors have priority of recourse. Mr. Knight's suggested issue amounts in effect, to this that the creditors of Aghore Nath Chatterjee are not entitled to payment at all and involves an issue between Aghore Nath Chatterjee and the 2nd and 3rd Defendents and the taking of a partnership account as between them. Here again not merely is the point not raised in the pleadings but its decision is not necessary to give the Plaintiff the relief he seeks for if as he alleges he is a joint creditor and as such entitled to priority, the fund is ample to satisfy not only his claim but that, of the other alleged joint creditors. It was argued that if he failed on this point and it was held there was no partnership the fund was not sufficient to satisfy all the creditors whose total claim amounts to about Rs. 1,80,000. But so far as the plaintiff is concerned the fund appears to be sufficient for if he fails to establish the partnership he can still rely as he does upon his position as a secured creditor and the fund is from what has been stated to me Sufficient to satisfy all secured creditors, It may be that in such a case it will not satisfy all the unsecured creditors, but as I have already held this suit, must be confined to the Plaintiff's claim. 9. Though I hold that the Plaintiff's suit is, to tho extent I have mentioned, main tainablc it will be well if the Plaintiff's position be reconsidered for it, may turn out at the hearing that this suit was unnecessary. If as I understand the fund in Court amounts to Its. 9. Though I hold that the Plaintiff's suit is, to tho extent I have mentioned, main tainablc it will be well if the Plaintiff's position be reconsidered for it, may turn out at the hearing that this suit was unnecessary. If as I understand the fund in Court amounts to Its. 1,53,000 there appears to be sufficient money to satisfy the Plaintiffs claim as a secured creditor even if he fails to establish priority by reason also of his alleged position as a joint creditor by tho partnership. In this respect the allegation in the 27th paragraph of the plaint "that unless the Defendants M.E. Gubboy, Kedar Nath Bhuttacharji, Mohit Kumari Dabee and Umamoyee Dassi are restrained by an injunction of this Hon'ble Court from obtaining payment of their respective claims from the receiver out of the said compensation money in his hands until the final determination of this suit or until the further order by this Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff will be unable to recover the decretal amount due to him as aforesaid" appears to be incorrect. This, however, is a matter to be dealt with at the trial. 10. I desire to add that my judgment proceeds upon the facts of this particular case and I say nothing as regards any suit which any other Defendant may be advised to bring. I order that the case be sent down for trial of the issues I have settled. Costa of all parties will be costs in the cause.