JUDGMENT 1. The first objection to the judgment taken by the learned vakil for the Appellants is that the Plaintiff purchaser having, on his own showing, purchased only a portion of the jote, got no title. The authority which he cites in support of this proposition is the case of Kuldip Singh v. Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. ILR 26 Cal. 615 (1899). That case, however, is no authority for the proposition that he lays down because it only decides that a landlord need not recognise the splitting up of his jote or the transfer of a portion of it to some other person. It does not support the proposition contended for by the Appellants. In our opinion, the proposition is not a sound one and must fail. The second point taken is that inasmuch as the Plaintiff's vendors were not registered as tenants in the landlord's sherista, the sale of the holding in execution of a decree against the recorded tenants would pass the interest of the Plaintiff's vendors and, therefore, the Plaintiff would take nothing by his purchase. But there is no law rendering it obligatory on the tenants to get their names recorded in the landlord's sherista for the purpose of perfecting their title. The daughters of Laskar, therefore, who were the Plaintiff's vendors, had a good title as heirs of Laskar without getting their names registered and, if so, they had that which they could transfer to the Plaintiff. The learned vakil relics on the case of Nitayi Behari Saha v. Harigovinda ILR 26 Cal. 677 (1899) and he quotes a passage appearing in the judgment at page 699. But that case is distinguishable from the present, because that was the case of a tenure and the tenants in that case were bound to register their names in the landlord's sherista. That being so, the contention urged by the Appellants fails and, as the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.