JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. 2. The plaintiff claims the entire rent of the tenure from the defendant on the ground that he is the person registered under the Land Registration Act as proprietor of the entire 16 annas of the superior interest. The Court of first instance gave him a decree for the entire rent, but the learned Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has reversed that decree and dismissed the suit. 3. It appears that the proprietary interest belonged to two persons Ram Kant and Ram Krishna in equal shares. Ram Kant's interest devolved on his three sons, two of whom executed a conveyance in respect of 8 annas share to the plaintiff. The two sons of Ram Kant have been made parties to the suit as pro forma defendants. The third son is alleged to be insane. However that may be, the plaintiff got his name registered with respect to the 8 annas share of Ram Kant. The 8 annas which belonged to Pran Krishna, was purchased in the name of the plaintiff's son Naba Chandra. The latter died leaving a son; but the plaintiff got his name registered as the heir of Naba Chandra. In fact the plaintiff has got his name registered as the proprietor of 16 annas under the Land Registration Act and this is found by both the Courts below. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to get his name registered as heir of Naba Chandra, nor in respect of the share of the third son of Ram Kant 4. Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down that "Where rent is due to the proprietor, manager or mortgagee of an estate, the receipt of the person registered under the Land Registration Act, 1876, as proprietor, manager or mortgagee of that estate, or of his agent authorised in that behalf, shall be a sufficient discharge for the rent; and the person liable for the rent shall not be entitled to plead in defence to a claim by the person so registered that the rent is due to any third person." Under the express words of the section, therefore, it was not open to the defendant to plead in defence that any portion of the rent was due to any third person. The rights of such third person are provided for in the Section itself. It says: "But nothing in this Section shall affect any remedy which any such third person may have against the registered proprietor, manager or mortgagee." 5. We are accordingly of opinion that the Court below is wrong in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the rent claimed. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is, therefore, set aside and that of the Court of first Instance restored with costs of this Court and the lower Appellate Court.