JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - These appeals arise out of two suits for rent. The Defendants hold two howlas within a revenue-paying taluk and they are also proprietors of a moiety of that taluk. The other moiety formerly belonged to some persons called the Pal Babus. Their share was sold for arrears of revenue and was purchased by the Plaintiff who now seeks to recover from the Defendants rent due on account of the howlas. One of the defences set up was that the Plaintiff in purchasing the taluk was merely the benamdar of the Pal Babus, and, therefore, that the rent was due not to the Plaintiff but to those for whom he purchased. 2. The Munsif overruling all the Defendants' pleas decreed the suit, and the only point in his decision that it is necessary for me to notice is his view that the Defendants were precluded by sec. 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act from pleading that the rent was due not to the Plaintiff but, to the Pal Babus. 3. The Subordinate Judge on appeal dismissed the suit, holding that the Plaintiff was merely a henamdar of the Pal Babus; and, with reference to that part of the Munsif's decision which I have noticed, he held that sec. 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was no bar to the plea set up by the Defendants. That is the sole point which it is necessary for me to consider in this appeal. 4. Sec. 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act runs as follows:--"Where rent is due to the proprietor, manager, or mortgagee of an estate, the receipt of the person registered under the Land Registration Act, 1876, as proprietor, manager, or mortgagee of that estate, or his agent authorized in that behalf, shall be a sufficient discharge for the rent; and the person liable for the rent shall not he entitled to plead in defence to a claim by the person so registered that the rent is due to any third person." Now, in the present case, the Plaintiff is the person registered as the proprietor of the share which formerly belonged to the Pal Babus and the Pal Babus are no longer proprietors of this property. The Subordinate Judge, however, holds that the person entitled to the benefit of the above section must in the first instance be a proprietor, manager or mortgagee of an estate and in the second he must be registered as such under the Land Registration Act and in the third he must show that the rent claimed is due to him and that the person sued is liable to pay the same to him." It appears to me that this view of the section is not correct. 5. The section nowhere lays down that the Plaintiff must be the real proprietor of the estate. What it says is that when rent is due to the proprietor, as it is claimed to be due in this case, the person liable for the rent shall not be entitled to plead in defence to a claim by the person who is registered as proprietor that the rent is due to another third person. That is exactly the plea that has been taken in this case. 6. Whether the Plaintiff is the proprietor or not, he has been registered as proprietor. It, therefore, seems clearly to follow that the section bars the Defendant from pleading in his defence to this claim by the Plaintiff that the rent is due to the Pal Babus. 6. The Subordinate Judge in support of his view has referred to the case of Durga Das Hazra v. Samash Akon 4 C. W. N. 606 (1895). In that case, however, there was a point which distinguishes it from the present. There it was found that the title was with the Plaintiff but they were out of possession in respect of the land of which they claimed rent. 7. The learned pleader for the Respondent also strongly relies on that case. But, in the case of Hem Chandra Misri v. Raja Sourendra Mohan Tagore 5 C. W. N. 482 (1895), it was held that where a mortgagee who was in possession and would have been entitled to recover rent if he had been registered was not registered, there the tenant was precluded from pleading that the rent was due not to the mortgagor but to the mortgagee. The circumstances of that case seem to be more in accord with this case than the case of Durga Das Hazra v. Samash Akon 4 C. W. N. 606 (1895). 8. The terms of sec. The circumstances of that case seem to be more in accord with this case than the case of Durga Das Hazra v. Samash Akon 4 C. W. N. 606 (1895). 8. The terms of sec. 60 to my mind are very clear and I think that there is no doubt they apply to the defence set up in this case. The object of the legislature was to secure complete registration of the names of all proprietors. One step towards securing this object was by sec. 78 of the Land Registration Act in which it is laid down that no person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming such rent as proprietor or manager of an estate in respect of which registration was required unless the name of such claimant shall be registered under that Act. That section still left it free to the tenant to refuse to pay rent to a person who was not a proprietor even though he was registered. But by sec. 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the legislature has taken a further step towards the object they had in view. They now debar the tenants from pleading in answer to a claim by a person who is registered as the proprietor that the rent is payable by them to anyone who is not a registered proprietor. 9. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is set aside 10. The learned pleader for the Respondent suggests that the case should be remanded to the Subordinate Judge in order that he may try the other issue, namely, the second issue, which is as follows: Are the alleged arrears due and unpaid. That issue is said to be founded on the allegation made in the 6th paragraph of the Defendants' written statement to the effect that the Defendants had paid revenue due by the proprietor in order to save the taluk from sale and this is the allegation which the Respondents' pleader contends ought to be tried by the Subordinate Judge, so that, if it be true, any sum paid by the Defendants as revenue may be set off against the rent claimed. But no issue was drawn up directly bearing on this allegation, and on the second issue the Munsif found that the Defendants had not shown that they had paid rents to the Plaintiff. But no issue was drawn up directly bearing on this allegation, and on the second issue the Munsif found that the Defendants had not shown that they had paid rents to the Plaintiff. That finding was not objected to on appeal to the Subordinate Judge, and I am therefore of opinion that there is no necessity to remand the case to the Subordinate Judge to try a point which was not raised before him. 11. In this view of the matter as the Appellant has succeeded, the judgment of the Munsif must be restored. The Defendants will pay the Plaintiff's costs in all the Courts.