JUDGMENT 1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order allowing a claim preferred under r. 58 of Or. XXI of the CPC of 1908. The Petitioners obtained a decree on the 17th May 1909 for arrears of rent due in respect of the disputed holding, in a suit which they had commenced on the 14th April. The Plaintiffs were interested in a three-fourths share of the superior interest as landlord. The holder of the remaining one-fourth share was joined as a pro forma Defendant in addition to the recorded tenant against whom the claim for rent was made. The Plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that the annual rent was Rs. 14 a year, that it was jointly payable to themselves and the pro forma Defendant, that the rent due for their share was in arrears, that they had not been able to ascertain whether the rent due for the share of the pro forma Defendant had been paid, but that they had reason to believe that it had been paid. They consequently brought the suit for recovery of what they believed to be the total amount of rent due; but they stated that if it transpired that any portion of the rent due to the pro forma Defendant was still unpaid, they would increase the value of the suit and pay additional Court fees. A notice was served upon the recorded tenant as also upon the pro forma Defendant neither of whom entered appearance. The result was that an ex parte decree was made for the amount claimed. The question for consideration is whether the decree is of such a nature as to attract the operation of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and thus to exclude the application of r. 58 of Or. XXI of the Code of 1908 which corresponds to sec. 278 of the CPC of 1882. The Plaintiffs assert that the decree obtained by them is a decree for arrears due on account of the holding within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claimant asserts that sec. 170 has no application inasmuch as the decree is really one for money obtained by co-sharer landlords in respect of their share only of the rent. (1) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claimant asserts that sec. 170 has no application inasmuch as the decree is really one for money obtained by co-sharer landlords in respect of their share only of the rent. After a careful consideration of the arguments addressed to us we have arrived at the conclusion that the contention of the Petitioner is well-founded and must prevail. This is clear from an examination of the plaint that the suit was intended to be one for the entire amount of rent due. The Plaintiffs expressly stated that they were aware of what was due to themselves, that they had not been able to obtain precise information as to what might be due to their co-sharer, but that they had reason to believe that nothing was due to him. They offered to increase the valuation of the suit, if it should turn out in the end that rent was still due to their co-sharer. Under these circumstances, we must hold that the suit was one for the whole amount due; indeed, the suit could never have been intended as one by co-sharer landlords for their share only of the rent, because the Plaintiffs did not even allege that they could collect rent separately. The co-sharer of the Plaintiffs did not enter appearance in the suit; consequently they were entitled to proceed on the assumption that nothing was due to him and the decree therefore, which was made in their favour, was a decree for the whole sum then due to the entire body of landlords. Consequently irrespective of the provision of sec. 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to treat the decree now under execution as one for arrears of rent due in respect of the entire holding. We are also of opinion that if it were necessary for the Plaintiffs to rely upon the provisions of gee. 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, their position would be unassailable. We are also of opinion that if it were necessary for the Plaintiffs to rely upon the provisions of gee. 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, their position would be unassailable. That section provides that where a co-sharer landlord who has instituted a suit to recover the rent due to all the co-sharer landlords in respect of an entire tenure or holding and has made all the remaining co-sharers parties Defendants to the suit, is unable to ascertain what rent is due for the whole tenure or holding, or whether the rent due to the other co-sharer landlords has been paid or not owing to the refusal or neglect of the tenant or of the co-sharer landlord Defendant to the suit to furnish him with correct information on these points or on either of them, such Plaintiff co-sharer landlord shall be entitled to proceed with the suit for his share only of the rent, and a decree obtained by him in a suit so framed shall be as effectual as a decree obtained by a sole landlord or an entire body of landlords in a suit brought for the rent due to all the co-sharers. In the case before us, the Plaintiffs asserted that they had not been able to obtain information from their co-sharer as to whether any amount of rent was due to him. The co-sharer who was made a party to the suit did not enter appearance. The tenant against whom the claim was made also did not enter appearance. Under such circumstances the Plaintiffs could proceed with their suit under sec. 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But the learned Vakil for the Opposite Party invited our attention to sub-sec. 2 of sec. 158B and pointed out that the notice contemplated by that section had not been served upon the co-sharer landlord. This is immaterial, because, if the notice has not been served, there is time yet to serve the necessary notice upon the co-sharer, as execution has been arrested by the claim which has been preferred. The facts disclosed make it reasonably plain that this is an attempt by the transferee of a holding which is alleged by the landlords to be non-transferable to get a recognition of his purchase by means of a claim under r. 58 of Or. XXI of the Code in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. The facts disclosed make it reasonably plain that this is an attempt by the transferee of a holding which is alleged by the landlords to be non-transferable to get a recognition of his purchase by means of a claim under r. 58 of Or. XXI of the Code in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We may further observe that the claimant is not without a remedy if he has any real grievance. If by his purchase of the property, he is entitled as a matter of right to claim recognition from the landlords, he may, upon the allegation made here, maintain a suit for declaration that the decree obtained against the recorded tenant is not binding upon the properly in his hands. 2. The result is that this rule is made absolute and the order of the Court below discharged. The Petitioner will have his costs here and in the Court below. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at two gold mohurs.