JUDGMENT Rampini, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought to prove title to land and to recover possesion thereof. The lower Appellate Court gave the Plaintiff a decree. 2. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 appeal. On their behalf it has been urged (1) that the lower Appellate Court should not have found that the lands purchased by the Defendant No. 1 at a sale held in execution of a rent decree obtained by a co-sharer landlord could not be identified with those purchased by the Plaintiff, as no such plea was ever raised by the parties; and (2) that at the execution sale at which the Defendant No. 1 purchased, the title of the recorded tenants passed. 3. The first plea is immaterial. It does not matter whether the lands purchased by the Defendant cannot be identified with those purchased by the Plaintiff, as long as it be held, as has been found by the lower Appellate Court, that the Plaintiff has proved his title to the land and that the tenure or holding did not pass at the execution sale in 1888. 4. The Appellants do not impugn the first finding, but only the second. They rely on the case of Panye Chunder Sirkar v. Hur Chunder Chowdhry I. L. R. 10 Cal. 496 (1884). The Court of first instance, whose decree was set aside by the lower Appellate Court, has also cited the case of Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677 (1899). Both these cases are at first sight in favour of the Appellants, but are distinguishable from the "present case. In the case of Panye Chunder Sirkar v. Hur Chunder Chowdhry I. L. R. 10 Cal. 496 (1884) the tenure was apparently sold at the instance of the sole landlord. In the case of Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677 (1890) the entire rent of the tenure was sued for and the Defendants were sued as representing the ownership of the whole tenure. In the present case, the suit was brought by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent only. In the case of Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677 (1890) the entire rent of the tenure was sued for and the Defendants were sued as representing the ownership of the whole tenure. In the present case, the suit was brought by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent only. Moreover some doubt has been thrown on the decision in the latter of these two cases by the decisions of this Court in Rupram v. Iswar 6 C. W. N. 302 (1902) and Manurattan v. Harinath 1 C. L. J. 500 (1904). The correct rule of law as to what passes at a sale held in execution of a rent decree obtained by a co-sharer landlord would seem to be laid down by the Lordships of the Privy Council in Jiban Krishna v. Brojo Lal 7 C. W. N. 425: s. c. L. R. 30 I. A. 81; I. L. R. 30 Cal. 550 (1903). The recent case of Promoda Nath v. Ramoni Kant 9 C. W. N. 34 (1904) is to the same effect. There are also many other rulings which favour the conclusion that at such a sale only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor passes. See the cases of Beni Madhub v. Joad Ali I. L. R. 17 Cal. 390 (1890), Durga Charan v. Kali Prosunno 3 C. W N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899), Sitanath v. Atmaram 4 C. W. N. 571 (1900) and Sadagar Sarkar v. Krishna Chandra 3 C. W. N. 742 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 937 (1899). 5. I am therefore of opinion that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct and would dismiss the appeal with costs. Mookerjee, J. 6. The substantial question which calls for decision in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff-Respondent or Defendants Appellants had the preferential title to the occupancy holding which is the subject-matter of this litigation. It is not disputed that the holding was recorded in the books of the landlord in the names of Nasaruddi, Balai and Tanu as tenants. On the 24th January 1885 the Plaintiff purchased the interest of Nasiruddi and Balai under a registered conveyance, the genuineness and the validity of which were established in the Court below. It is not disputed that the holding was recorded in the books of the landlord in the names of Nasaruddi, Balai and Tanu as tenants. On the 24th January 1885 the Plaintiff purchased the interest of Nasiruddi and Balai under a registered conveyance, the genuineness and the validity of which were established in the Court below. On the 1st September 1888, one of the landlords who was entitled to 7/16th share of the entire rent payable by the tenants, brought a suit against Nasaruddi, Balai and Tanu for his share of the rent and got a decree, in execution of this decree the property was sold and purchased by the first Defendant, one of the Appellants on the 9th September 1889. The point in controversy between the parties relates to the effect of this execution sale; it is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that nothing passed at the sale, but the right, title and interest of the judgment debtors and as the interest of Nasaruddi and Balai had previously vested in the Plaintiff, such interest was not affected by the sale; on the other hand it is argued on behalf of the Defendants that although the decree for rent in execution of which the sale took place was a decree obtained by a fractional landlord for his share of the rent yet as the Plaintiff was not the recorded tenant, her interest was affected by the execution sale and was transferred thereby to the purchaser Defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the contention of the Plaintiff as well founded, and has decreed her claim The Defendants have appealed to this Court and have urged substantially the same ground as was unsuccessfully taken on their behalf in the Court below. 7. In support of his contention the learned vakil for the Appellants placed reliance upon the cases of Panye Chunder v. Hur Chunder I. L. R. 10 Cal. 496(1884) and Nitayi Behari v. Hart Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677 (1899). In my opinion these cases are distinguishable and do not advance the case for the Appellants. In the first case the decree for rent in execution of which the sale took place appears to have been obtained by the sole landlord for the entire rent due on the tenure; but the sale seems to have been held under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In the first case the decree for rent in execution of which the sale took place appears to have been obtained by the sole landlord for the entire rent due on the tenure; but the sale seems to have been held under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. As pointed out in the judgment of Mr. Justice McDonell, having regard to the nature of the decree, there could be no doubt that the zemindar was entitled to sell the whole tenure and the only question was whether he actually sold it. Upon this latter question it was made manifest from the proceedings that the tenure was proceeded against and regarded as liable and the whole tenure was actually sold. There was therefore no substance in the contention that all that had passed at the sale was the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor. This case therefore does not in any way support the contention of the Appellant. The case of Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677 (1899) also appears to be distinguishable. In that case A. and B. were the joint tenants of a tenure which was recorded in the books of the landlords in the name of A. alone. Two of the landlords brought a suit against A. for arrears of rent due from A. and B., obtained a decree, and sold the tenure. It was conceded that the effect of the sale held on the basis of a decree obtained by fractional landlords for their share of the rent was identical with the effect of a sale held under the CPC in execution of a decree for money. But the majority of the learned Judges who heard that case decided that the effect of the sale under the circumstances of the case was to pass the interest not merely of the recorded, but also of the unrecorded, tenant. The reasoning upon which this decision was founded is analysed and examined in my judgment in the case of Manurattan v. Harinath 1 C. L. J. 500 (514) (1904). As I understand the case, the decision of the majority of the learned Judges was founded upon an application of the doctrine of representation and the principle of estoppel. The reasoning upon which this decision was founded is analysed and examined in my judgment in the case of Manurattan v. Harinath 1 C. L. J. 500 (514) (1904). As I understand the case, the decision of the majority of the learned Judges was founded upon an application of the doctrine of representation and the principle of estoppel. They held, and in my opinion correctly, that if A. and B. are joint tenants of a tenure and if by an arrangement amongst themselves and the landlord, A. alone is recorded in the books of the latter, A. must be taken as between the landlord and his tenants to represent the tenancy completely. Under these circumstances it is competent to the landlord to bring a suit against A. for rent payable by A. and B. in respect of the tenancy to obtain a decree and to sell, even if he is a fractional landlord, the right, title and interest of both A. and B., provided of Course that such interest is transferable by law. If such a sale takes place, B. cannot in justice, equity and good conscience be heard to say that his interest has not been affected by the sale. This is a perfectly intelligible principle, because as pointed out in the case of Rupram Namasudra v. Iswar Chandra 6 C. W. N. 302 (1902), the recorded tenant represents the ownership of the whole tenure with the consent of his co-sharers. The zemindar brings a suit against him in his representative capacity and at a sale held in execution of a decree obtained in such a suit, it is competent for him to sell the interest of all the tenants recorded and unrecorded and it is not open to the dormant sharers in the tenancy to contend that their interest has not passed by the sale. This is the true principle which underlies the decision in Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal. 677(1899) as is clear from an examination of the judgments delivered in that case, and it is also borne out by the cases of Bissessur Lall v. Luchmessur Singh L. R. 6 I. A. 233 (1879), Jeolal Singh v. Gunga Persad I. L. R. 10 Cal. 996 (1884), Harivithal v. Jairamvithal I. L. R. 14 Bom. 677(1899) as is clear from an examination of the judgments delivered in that case, and it is also borne out by the cases of Bissessur Lall v. Luchmessur Singh L. R. 6 I. A. 233 (1879), Jeolal Singh v. Gunga Persad I. L. R. 10 Cal. 996 (1884), Harivithal v. Jairamvithal I. L. R. 14 Bom. 597 (1890), Madhusudan v. Hiroo Ram 2 C. W. N. 94 (1887) and Rajani Kant v. Uzir Bibi 7 C. W. N. 170 (1902). But the very statement of this doctrine makes it clear that it cannot have any possible application to the facts of the case before us. Here A., B. and C. were the recorded tenants A. and B. transferred their interest to the Plaintiff and it is found that their interest was transferable by custom. There is no foundation for any suggestion that the transferors continued to represent the tenancy on behalf of the transferee, nor is there any allegation that the transferee consented to be represented by the transferors. There is nothing to show that the fractional landlord who brought the suit for rent sued the original tenants in a representative capacity, if they had any. Nor is there anything to indicate that the landlord decree-holder professed to sell the entire holding; on the other hand, so far as I can judge from the certificate of sale, it was a sale which passed the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors under sec. 316, C. P. C. There was accordingly no claim against the Defendants in a representative capa-city, no sale of the holding as represented by the Defendants and no foundation for suggesting that the transferee was estopped from contending that the sale had not affected her undoubted interest in the property. The case appears to me to be very similar to that of Kristo Chander v. Raj Kristo I. L. R. 12 Cal. 24 (1885) and I must hold that the Defendants have failed to discharge the onus which lay upon them of showing that the sale under the decree for rent was of such a nature as to give the purchaser priority over the Plaintiffs. It is now firmly settled by the cases of Durga Churn v. Kali Prosonno 3 C. W. N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. It is now firmly settled by the cases of Durga Churn v. Kali Prosonno 3 C. W. N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899), Sadagar v. Krishna Chandra 3 C. W. N. 712 : S. C. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 937 (1899), Sheikh Jarip v. Ram Kumar 3 C. W. N. 747 (1899), Sitanath v. Atmaram 4 C. W. N. 571 (1900) and Promoda Nath v. Ramoni Kant 9 C W. N. 34 (1904), that a decree obtained by a fractional landlord for his share of the rent operates in the same way as a decree for money and a sale held in execution thereof produces the same effect as a sale in execution of a money decree under the CPC and does not lead to the results which flow from a sale under Chap. XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That such an execution sale held at the instance of a fractional landlord passes merely the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor is shown by the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Doolar Chand v. Lala Chabeel Chand L. R. 6 I. A. 47(1878) and Jiban Krishna v. Brojo Lal 7 C. W. N. 425 : s. c. L. R. 30 I. A. 81; I. L. R. 30 Cal. 550 (1903). Taken therefore along with the principle that a person who is not a party to a suit cannot be affected in person or property by anything that is done in the suit, the doctrine deducible from these cases shows that the Plaintiff as the prior purchaser is entitled to succeed. As pointed out by this Court in Ambika Persad v. Chowdry Keshri Sahai I. L. R. 24 Cal. 642(1897), the Plaintiff as transferee could not compel the landlord to register her name in his books, and the mere fact that her name is not so registered cannot, therefore, prejudice her rights. The landlord as the holder of a decree obtained by a fractional co-sharer in the zamindari could ordinarily sell only the right, title and interest of the persons named therein as the judgment-debtors. The landlord as the holder of a decree obtained by a fractional co-sharer in the zamindari could ordinarily sell only the right, title and interest of the persons named therein as the judgment-debtors. It was for him or for those claiming under him to state and prove everything which is necessary to bring this case within the exception to the general rule and to establish the existence of the special circumstances which would entitle him to the benefit of the principle explained in Nitayi Behari v. Hari Govind I. L. R. 26 Cal, 677 (1899). This they have clearly failed to do, and the title of the Plaintiff as the prior purchaser must prevail. The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs.