JUDGMENT 1. The facts out of which this litigation arises are as follows: -The Plaintiff had obtained three decrees for rent in respect of a mokurari tenure consisting of three mouzahs. He applied for execution, and the present Appellant came in and objected on the ground that he had purchased two-thirds of the tenure. The objection was allowed by the Deputy Collector and this suit has been brought in order to establish the Plaintiff's right to have the entire tenure sold in execution of his rent decree. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit on the ground principally that the purchase of the Appellant took place after the rent decree was passed, and he has at the end of his judgment, referred to sec. 125 of Act I (Bengal Council) of 1879, as showing that the present Appellant not being the proprietor of the tenure at the time when the decree was passed and not being in lawful possession of it, had no locus standi to object to the execution of the decree. 2. Three points are taken in this appeal. In the first place it is contended that the persons whom the Plaintiff sued in the suits in which he obtained the rent decrees were not the sole recorded tenants of the tenure, and, therefore, that the predecessors of the Appellant from whom he purchased were not affected by the decrees passed in those suits. 3. In the second place it is contended that there was not one tenure as the Plaintiff alleges, but three, that each of the three mouzahs mentioned by the Plaintiff constituted a separate tenure, and that under the decree for the consolidated rent of the three tenures, the Plaintiff is not entitled to sell any one of them. 4. In the third place it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. 5. Before disposing of these points it is desirable to refer to the observation of the Subordinate Judge with reference to sec. 125 of the Act, that the Appellant had no locus standi in the execution proceedings. On the admitted facts of the case it is no doubt true that the Appellant at the time of the decrees obtained by the Plaintiff was not the proprietor of the tenures and was not in lawful possession. 125 of the Act, that the Appellant had no locus standi in the execution proceedings. On the admitted facts of the case it is no doubt true that the Appellant at the time of the decrees obtained by the Plaintiff was not the proprietor of the tenures and was not in lawful possession. And it, therefore, seems to follow that he was not entitled to make the objection for which provision is made in sec. 126. But it appears to us that this is not a matter which arises in the present suit. The suit is brought to establish the Plaintiff's right to sell the entire tenure; it is not brought to set aside the Deputy Collector's order refusing the execution to proceed, and, indeed, it is doubtful whether any suit could be brought to set aside that order. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that it was for the Plaintiff definitely to prove that under the decrees which he had obtained he was entitled to sell the entire tenures. 6. The Appellant's vendors were two persons named Beni Narayan and Harihar Narayan. Neither of these persons were parties to the suits in which two out of the three rent decrees were obtained. It is not disputed that they owned each a third share of the tenure. 7. The Plaintiff's case was that he had sued the recorded tenant, Kirpal Narayan Tewari, and that, therefore, he was entitled to sell the whole tenure in execution of the decree against him. The fact whether Kirpal was the sole recorded tenant was a fact solely within the Plaintiff's knowledge, but of that fact be has offered no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand it is shown that the Plaintiff had on previous occasions sued other persons including Harihar Narayan and Beni Narayan for the rent of this tenure, facts which go a long way to indicate that these other persons were also recorded as tenants in his sheristha and we are, therefore, of opinion that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that his rent decrees were obtained against the persons who were recorded as tenants. The onus of proof was on him, and he has failed to discharge it. The onus of proof was on him, and he has failed to discharge it. In this view the Plaintiff is not entitled to sell the tenures in execution, at any rate, of the first two decrees obtained by him, the decrees having been obtained against some only of the recorded tenants. In support of the second objection that the three mouzahs formed not one tenure as alleged by the Plaintiff but three separate tenures, the Appellant relies on a petition presented by the decree-holder for execution on the 2nd of May 1900.That was a petition for the execution of a rent decree in respect of these three mouzahs which are the subject-matter of this litigation; and in the account at the foot of that petition these three mouzahs are mentioned separately, and the amount of rent due in respect of them is shown separately against each. 8. But in addition to this evidence the Appellant has asked us to receive further evidence of which he was not aware at the time when the suit was tried. This further evidence consists of copies of the sanads under which the tenures were granted, and also a plaint in another suit which the Plaintiff had filed so long ago as 1881. We are of opinion under the circumstances of this case, that this additional evidence which was out of the Appellant's reach during the trial, should be now received and it clearly shows that the three mouzahs did not form one tenure but each formed a separate tenure in itself and there is nothing to show that they have since been amalgamated. In fact the petition for execution to which we have referred shows that as late as the year 1900, these three mouzahs were recorded as being separately liable each for its rent. This being the case, we are of opinion that a decree for the consolidated rent of the three tenures cannot be executed by the sale of the tenures. That would, in effect, be making each tenure liable for the rent of the other tenures. 9. The third ground taken by the Appellant that the present suit was barred by limitation, need not, in the view we take on the merits of the case, be discussed. 10. The result is that the appeal succeeds. That would, in effect, be making each tenure liable for the rent of the other tenures. 9. The third ground taken by the Appellant that the present suit was barred by limitation, need not, in the view we take on the merits of the case, be discussed. 10. The result is that the appeal succeeds. The Plaintiff's suit to have a declaration that he is entitled to sell the entire tenure consisting of the three mouzahs is dismissed. 11. The Plaintiff will pay the Appellant's costs in both Courts. We may remark that the title of the Plaintiff to bring to sale one-third or the mouzahs belonging to Kirpal Narayan Tewari is not in question in this suit.