Judgement These were five consolidated appeals from decrees of the High Court dated in July and August, 1904, deliver on appeal from decrees of the District Judge of Alipur (February 8, 1904). They arose out of five suits filed by the appellants in the Court of the First Munsif at Sealdah in March, 1895. One was against a tenant for the enhancement of his rent, and the remaining respondents to the appeal in that suit were added by the Court as pro forma defendants on the ground that they were co-sharers of the appellants in the lands in respect of which an enhancement of rent was claimed. The other four suits were also against tenants of the appellants for the recovery of certain arrears of rent as well as for enhancement, and similarly in them co-sharers of the appellants were added as defendants. The decrees for arrears of rent were not in dispute in these appeals, which were directed to the other 5 Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 1 ( 1910- 1911) Roy Jatindra Nath C howdhri V. Prasanna Kumar Banerji 106 question raised by the suits, namely, as to the right of the plaintiffs as " fractional" landlords to enhance the plaintiffs own share or portion of rent paid by the several defendants to the suits. The respondent Roy Prasanna Kumar Banerji was made a defendant to two suits, and he was concerned only with the appeals arising therein. The five suits, however, were heard and tried together in all the Courts in India, and, in so far as they sought for a declaration of the liability of the various defendants to pay enhanced rent, they were all dismissed upon the preliminary point, that they were not maintainable by reason of the plaintiffs co-sharers (the lands being undivided) not having joined in the suits, it being held that the plaintiffs as " fractional " landlords were unable to maintain a suit for enhancement without their co-sharers joining in such suit. The District Court affirmed this view. The High Court remanded the cases to ascertain upon further information whether there had been any partition, not by metes and bounds, but of one estate into six separate estates with a proportionate allotment of rents to such separate estates. The District Court affirmed this view. The High Court remanded the cases to ascertain upon further information whether there had been any partition, not by metes and bounds, but of one estate into six separate estates with a proportionate allotment of rents to such separate estates. The Chief Justice said " It is contended for the appellants that these six estates at one time formed one estate, and that there must have been a partition of the one estate into the six several estates, and that the rents were allotted proportionately to each of the six estates. There is perhaps some ground for this suggestion, and its importance in the earlier stages of the case was not apparent. There is no clear finding upon this point by the Court below, probably because at the time when this case was in its earlier stages the decision in the case of Hem Chandra Chowdhry v. Kali Prasanna Bhaduri (( 1899) I. L. R. 26 Cale. 832.) had not been pronounced. If it turn out that there has been no such partition, the view taken by the Court below appears to me to be right. But if these six estates were originally one, some competent authority, presumably the Revenue authority, must have split it up into six estates, and further information on the point seems to me to be requisite. As the appellants ask for it, the proper order will be to remand the case to ascertain whether there has been, as there was in the case I have referred to, any partition, and if so, by whom and when, not of the lands by medes and bounds, but of the one estate into six separate estates, with a proportionate allotment of rent to such separate estate. If it transpire that such is the case, the present plaintiffs can successfully maintain the suit upon the authority to which I have referred, but if there were no such partition, the suit must be dismissed with costs." The finding was that no partition had taken place, and accordingly the appeals were dismissed. If it transpire that such is the case, the present plaintiffs can successfully maintain the suit upon the authority to which I have referred, but if there were no such partition, the suit must be dismissed with costs." The finding was that no partition had taken place, and accordingly the appeals were dismissed. De Gruyther, K.C., and A. M. Dunne, for the appellants, after contending that the cases ought to be remitted to the original Court for retrial as to the separation of the estates, their separate assessment for Government revenue, and separate rental payable by the tenants, submitted that, as they were entitled to separate decrees for arrears, they were also entitled to separate decrees for enhancement. They referred to the Bengal Tenancy Act, ss. 7, 30, 54 (3.), 65, 66, 68, 143, 159, 162, 187, 188, and to the amending Act of the Bengal Council (I. of 1907), ss. 14 and 44, which amend s. 58 and s. 148 of the principal Act. They contended that suits for arrears of rent are brought under the Bengal Tenancy Act as well as suits for enhancement. The plaintiff in the latter suits ought not to be compelled to make his co-owners co-plaintiffs. He cannot compel them to join him and is without a remedy if they refuse. It was a sufficient compliance with the Act reasonably construed that he made them parties defendant. Sect. 188 was not intended to alter the relationship of landlord and tenant as it previously existed under Act X. of 1859 and Bengal Act VIII. of 1869; and see s. 187 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. [Lord Macnaghten referred to Vagliano v. Bank of England ([ 1891] A. C. 107.), as to the construction of a statute, and to s. 144, Bengal Tenancy Act.] 5 Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 1 ( 1910- 1911) Roy Jatindra Nath C howdhri V. Prasanna Kumar Banerji 107 Sect. 188 was not intended to bring a suit to enhance within its provisions. The right to institute it was as much outside its provisions as the right to sue for arrears. The section merely prescribed a particular mode of exercising the right. Moreover the plaintiff was not a joint landlord, for partition is effected by apportioning the rent. Reference was made to Bengal Estates Partition Act (Bengal V. of 1897), ss. The right to institute it was as much outside its provisions as the right to sue for arrears. The section merely prescribed a particular mode of exercising the right. Moreover the plaintiff was not a joint landlord, for partition is effected by apportioning the rent. Reference was made to Bengal Estates Partition Act (Bengal V. of 1897), ss. 3 (5.), 4, and 81 Pyarimohun Bose v. Kedarnath Roy (( 1899) I. L. R. 26 Calc. 409.); Pramadanath Roy v. Ramani Kanta Roy. (( 1907) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 73, 77,78.) Ross, for the respondent Roy Prasanna Kumar Banerji, said that his client was not concerned with the suits for arrears, but only in those for enhancement, and was a party to only two of the five appeals. He contended that the partition was not proved, and that s. 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was imperative that all the co-owners must join as co-plaintiffs in a suit for enhancement, and that unless they did so no suit for that object could be brought. He referred to Baidya Nath De Sarkar v. Ilim (( 1897) I. L. R. 25 Calc. 917.); Guni Mahomed v. Moron (( 1878) I. L. R. 4 Cale. 96.); Beni Madhub Roy v, Jaod Ali Sircar (( 1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 390.) ; Gopal Chunder Das v. Umesh Narain Chowdhry (( 1890) I. L. R. 17 Cale. 695.); Moheeb Ali v. Ameer Rai (( 1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 538.); Haladhar Saha v, Rhidoy Sundri (( 1892) I, L. R. 19 Calc. 593.) ; Pramadanath Roy v. Ramani Kanta Roy. (( 1907) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 73, 77,78.) De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This litigation, which is the outcome of five different suits, has lasted for the period of fifteen years. It is not necessary to explain its origin or to trace its course, which has certainly been leisurely and somewhat devious. Nothing now remains to be determined but a question of general importance Does the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, prohibit one or some of two or more joint landlords from suing to enhance the rent unless both or all of "the fractional landlords," as they are sometimes called, join in the suit as co-plaintiffs? Sect. Nothing now remains to be determined but a question of general importance Does the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, prohibit one or some of two or more joint landlords from suing to enhance the rent unless both or all of "the fractional landlords," as they are sometimes called, join in the suit as co-plaintiffs? Sect. 188 declares that " where two or more persons are joint landlords, anything which the landlord is under this Act required or authorized to do must be done .... by both or all those persons acting together . . . . " The question therefore divides itself into two branches (1.) Is the institution of a suit to enhance rent a thing which the landlord is under the Act authorized to do ? And (2.) what is the meaning of the words " acting together " ? To take that expression first, it seems to their Lordships that it means just what it says. In order to comply with the Act the persons referred to must take common action. It was argued that it is enough if one of the joint landlords sues as plaintiff and makes those who do not concur with him defendants. In plain words the proposition is that if a person is made a defendant because he is unwilling to act together with the plaintiff he is to be deemed to be acting together with the plaintiff when once he is placed on the record as defendant. It is enough to state the proposition to dispose of it. Then comes the question, is a suit to enhance rent a thing authorized under the Act ? It is so plainly in the case of an occupancy raiyat. The authority is given expressly in s. 30. It is so also in the case of 5 Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 1 ( 1910- 1911) Roy Jatindra Nath C howdhri V. Prasanna Kumar Banerji 108 tenure-holders, though the language is not so explicit. Sect. 7 (1.) provides that in the cases where the rent of a tenure-holder is liable to be enhanced it may (subject to any contract between the parties) be enhanced up to a certain specified limit. App. 1 ( 1910- 1911) Roy Jatindra Nath C howdhri V. Prasanna Kumar Banerji 108 tenure-holders, though the language is not so explicit. Sect. 7 (1.) provides that in the cases where the rent of a tenure-holder is liable to be enhanced it may (subject to any contract between the parties) be enhanced up to a certain specified limit. Now rent can only be enhanced by instituting a suit for that purpose; and therefore it seems tolerably clear that the institution of a suit for enhancement of rent is a thing authorized by the Act in the case of tenure-holders as well as in the case of occupancy raiyats. It was argued that a suit to enhance rent stands on the same footing as a suit for arrears of rent, and that inasmuch as a suit for arrears of rent may be brought by one joint landlord making the other joint landlords defendants (as was decided in the case of Pramadanath Roy v. Ramani Kanta Roy (L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 73.)), a similar course may be adopted in a suit to enhance rent. But the answer is that the bringing of a suit for arrears of rent is not a thing which the landlord is under the Act either required or authorized to do. Rent in arrear is a debt. The right to recover a debt arises under the general law. A suit for recovery of rent does not require the authority of the Bengal Tenancy Act, nor does the Act purport to authorize such a suit, though on a decree being obtained consequences may follow which result from the provisions of the Act and from those provisions alone. Their Lordships therefore think that the judgment of the High Court dismissing these suits was quite right, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. The appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.