JUDGMENT 1. The true question involved in this appeal is what is the effect of the two sales, one held on the 21st July 1884 at which the Defendant No. 3 purchased a certain jote and the other on the 3rd April 1889 when, in execution of a decree for arrears of rent against the said Defendant No. 3, the jote was again sold and purchased by the Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. No doubt, the first-mentioned sale was in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by certain part-owners of the mehal in which the jote is situate; but the suit was brought, as the learned Judge of the Court below has found, against all the persons representing the jote in question, including Bhubaneswari and Dharmomoyee, the mothers and guardians of the two infant adopted sons. These persons, as the Judge finds, represented the ownership of the entire holding or tenure, and, at the sale which took place in execution of such decree for rent, whatever interest the family possessed in the jote in question passed to the Defendant No. 3. Indeed, according to the case set up by the Defendants in this case in their written statement, the whole interest in the jote passed to Defendant No. 3, and that individual was in possession of the entire jote. The Defendant No. 3, after this purchase, sold the jote in question to Joyeswari, the mother of the Plaintiff, but notwithstanding this, the part-owners in the zamindari who were the Plaintiffs in the previous suit for rent brought the subsequent suit which was also for rent against the Defendant No. 3. They were perhaps quite entitled to do so, as Joyeswari had not got her name registered in their sherista in place of the Defendant No. 3, but still the question is what was the exact interest that passed to the Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in execution of the decree that the part-owners obtained against the Defendant No. 3. What in law did pass was the interest, whatever that interest was, that the Defendant No. 3 possessed in the property in question. Now, this Defendant had already sold all the interest that he had in the property to Joyeswari and, therefore, there was no interest left in him at the time of the subsequent sale which could pass to the Defendants Nos. Now, this Defendant had already sold all the interest that he had in the property to Joyeswari and, therefore, there was no interest left in him at the time of the subsequent sale which could pass to the Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The learned vakil for the Appellant has asked us to view both these two sales upon the same footing. No doubt, from one point of view, they ought to be so considered; but there is this important distinction between these two sales, viz., that the first-mentioned rent suit was against all the persons who for the time being represented the entire jote, whereas at the time when the second suit for rent was brought the Defendant No. 3 did not, in fact, represent the jote, though no doubt his name alone stood in the part-proprietor's rent-roll, and not that of Joyeswari. We are, therefore, of opinion that Joyeswari acquired good title under the purchase made from the Defendant No. 3, and, it being found by both the Courts below that she was in possession for the last 12 years, the Plaintiff as the heir-at-law of the said Joyeswari is entitled to succeed in this action. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.