JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in respect of a tenure which was held for originally by Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and err lain persons who are described as Maho medans." The Plaintiffs who are the zemindars brought a suit for rent of the tenure against Defendants Nos. 1 (o 5 on the 10th August 1900. This suit was for a period prior to Sraban 1818. In execution of the deer,. obtained in the suit the tenure was sold and the sale was confirmed on the. 10th May 1908 corresponding to 27th Baisak 1315. The present suit was brought for the arrears of rent between the date of the institution of the previous suit and the date on which the sale was confirmed, i.e., up to the end of 1314, not only against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 but also against the Defendant No. 6. The Plaintiffs also claimed a 4-anna share of the rent for 1315 and 131G against the Defendant No. 6 in the present suit on the ground that the record-of-rights showed that the Defendant No. 6 was a co-sharer to the extent of 4 annas in the tenure by virtue of a purchase of the said 4 annas share from the Mahomedans in the year 1891. 2. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the Plaintiff for rent up to the year 1314 against Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 only and dismissed the claim against Defendant No. 6. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the Defendant No. 6 was also liable for the rent as claimed as he had failed to show that the kobala was benami and the record-of-rights showed his name as being the owner of the tenure to the extent of 4 annas share. 3. The Defendant No. 6 contended in the Courts below that the kobala executed in his favour by the Mahomedans was a benami one, and that he had no possession of, or concern with, the tenure. He further contended that the entries in the record-of-rights were not made at his instance. These facts, however, have been found against him by the lower Appellate Court and we must hold, therefore, that he was a co-sharer of the tenure along with Defendants Nos. 1 to 5. 4. He further contended that the entries in the record-of-rights were not made at his instance. These facts, however, have been found against him by the lower Appellate Court and we must hold, therefore, that he was a co-sharer of the tenure along with Defendants Nos. 1 to 5. 4. It is found by both the Courts below, (and in fact the finding was based upon the admission of the Plaintiffs themselves) that the Defendant No. 6 had never been recognised as a tenant, that the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were the recorded tenants in the stieristtia of the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs had never realised rent from the Defendant No. 6 although the kobala in the name of the Defendant No. 6 was executed so far back- as 1891. The property sold was described as an entire tenure; and as the decree was obtained by the Plaintiff against the recorded tenants, we think that what was intended to be hold and was sold, was the tenure itself, and not merely the interest of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. Having regard to all the circumstances referred to above, we do not think that it was open to the Defendant No. 6 to maintain a suit for a declaration of his rights to a 4-anna share on the ground that the sale did not pass his share in the tenure. During these 17 years or more he has never asserted his right as a tenant : and the finding is that he has never been recognised as a tenant nor was any rent realised from him. We are of opinion that the entire tenure including the interest, if any, of Defendant No. 6 passed by the sale to the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 6 disclaims any possession of, or concern with, the howla or any undertenure in the howla. 5. Under the circumstances the decree of the lower Appellate Court in so far as it relates to the claim for 1315 and 1316 against the Defendant No. 6 is set aside; but upon the findings arrived at the Defendant No. 6 must be held liable for the rent for the period prior to the confirmation of the sale along with Defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is varied accordingly. 1 to 5. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is varied accordingly. We allow costs in proportion in all Courts (the Appellant to get one-fifth and the Respondent to get four-fifths)