JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - The Respondent in this case was a dur-putnidar under the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by this suit seeks to recover rent from him in respect of the dur-putni tenure. The Defendant's answer to the claim is that, to the knowledge of the Plaintiff, he had transferred the durputni to two different sets of persons on different dates. 2. Both the lower Courts have held that by these transfers the Defendant was exonerated from liability for the rent to the Plaintiff. 3. On appeal it is contended that sec. 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has the effect of rendering such transfers inoperative against the landlord so that he is still able to sue the original dur-putnidar for the rent. It appears to me that this contention is not sound. Under sec. 11 of the Act, every permanent tenure shall be capable of being transferred to the same extent as other immoveable property and the effect of that provision has been construed in Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. Kristo Lal Singh ILR 16 Cal. 642 (1889) and Chintamoni Dutt v. Rash Behari Mondal ILR 19 Cal, 17 (1891) as exonerating the transferrer from liability for rent to the landlord. Then comes sec. 17 which lays down that, subject to the provisions of sec. 88, "the foregoing sections shall apply to the transfer of, or succession to, a share in a permanent tenure." Prima facie, then, reading sec. 17 with sec. 11 in the light of the rulings just cited, the transfer of a share of a tenure is permissible, and would, if there were no other provision of the law, exonerate the transferrer from liability for rent in respect of the share transferred. But this section is expressly made subject to the provisions of sec. 88 which enacts that a division of a tenure or holding, or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof shall not be binding on the landlord unless it is made with his consent in writing. Sec. 88 doubtedly imposes a restriction on the transfer of a share in a permanent tenure. If the transfer of such a share operates to free the transferrer from liability in respect of the share there would be a division of a holding, and there would be a distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof--a result which is excluded by sec. If the transfer of such a share operates to free the transferrer from liability in respect of the share there would be a division of a holding, and there would be a distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof--a result which is excluded by sec. 88 unless the landlord consents in writing. The effect therefore of sec. 88 is to make the transferrer still liable for the rent, and to retain the tenure as one undivided tenure. If however we were to construe sec. 88 in the sense for which the Appellant contends, we should, it seems to me, nullify the provisions of sec. 17. Reading the two sections together I am of opinion that the true conclusion is, not to forbid the transfer of a share in a tenure, but to render the transferee jointly liable with the transferrer for the rent and this view of the law has been adopted in the case of Jogemaya Dassi v. Girindra Nath Mukherjee 4 C.W.N. 590 (1900). When, therefore, in the present case the first transfer was made, the dur-putnidar and the transferrer were jointly liable for the rent. When the second transfer was made, by which the original dur-putnidar ceased to have any rights in the tenure, it appears to me that the effect was to make the two sets of transferees liable for the rent. In this view of the law, the provisions of sec. 88 have not been in any way infringed, and at the same time, the provisions of sec. 17 have been given effect to. The landlord is still entitled to regard the dur-putni as one undivided tenure and to hold the entire body of transferees jointly and severally liable for the rent. I would dismiss this appeal but without costs, as the Respondents have not appeared. Maclean, C.J. I agree but I do so with considerable hesitation. It must be taken, upon the authority of the cases of Kristo Bulluv v. Kristo Lal ILR 16 Cal. 642 (1889) and Chintamoni Dutt v. Rash Behari Mondal ILR 19 Cal. 17 (1891) and having regard to the language of sec. 11 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that if the transfer here had been of the whole tenure to one person, the original dur-putnidar, the transferrer, would be released from his liability to pay rent. 642 (1889) and Chintamoni Dutt v. Rash Behari Mondal ILR 19 Cal. 17 (1891) and having regard to the language of sec. 11 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that if the transfer here had been of the whole tenure to one person, the original dur-putnidar, the transferrer, would be released from his liability to pay rent. The difficulty I feel is whether, having regard to the true effect of sec. 17 of the Act, read with sec. 88, that principle applies and can apply to a case where the transfer has been of the tenure, not as a whole, but in separate parts. No doubt sec. 17 authorises such a transfer but authorises it subject to the provisions of sec. 88. We must, therefore, look at sec. 88 and that says: "A division of a tenure or holding, or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof shall not be binding on the landlord unless it is made with his consent in writing." Here the act of the transferrer in transferring the tenure piecemeal had the effect, as I think, of dividing the tenure and if that is so, that division would not be binding on the landlord unless with his written consent and, if it is not binding on the landlord, it is difficult to see how the original transferrer is freed from his original liability. I feel this doubt but it is not sufficient to justify me in differing from the conclusion that has been arrived at by my learned brother in this case.