JUDGMENT K.C. Chunder, J. - These appeals are by some of the judgment-debtors in an execution case against an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Hooghly. 2. Lot Bhastara Putni Mehal was held by some of the Mukherjees of Uttarpara. At the material time, there were three groups of putnidars. The first group comprised Jaharlal and Pannalal, two sons of Sures Chandra Mukherjee. They had one-sixth share each. Pannalal having died after the suit, but before the execution of the decree, his share was first inherited by his son, and then by his grandson, Pranab Mukherjee. Pranab being a minor, his one-sixth share was under the Court of Wards at the time of the present execution proceedings. Another group of one-third cosharers comprised Durga Charan, Satya Charan and Ambika Charan Mukherjee, descendants of Paresh Chandra Mukherjee who were at one time wards of Court, but at the time of the present execution, their estate had been released. They are appellants in Appeal No. 52. The third group consisted of Probal Mukherjee, son of Raj Mohan Mukherjee, on whose death at the time of the execution, his sons Ramdas Mukherjee and others were the putnidars. They are appellants in Appeal No. 9. 3. It appears that the one-third share of Jahar and Pannalal were in arrears. Separate accounts had been opened with the zamindar and it appears that the other two thirds cosharers had paid up their rent, but the landlord had to sue all the putnidars in Rent Suit No. 2 of 1942, and he obtained a decree which was first executed in Execution case No. 7 of 1945. The Court of Wards objected to the execution of the decree under S. 10-C, Court of Wards Act, and the Subordinate Judge by his order No. 45, dated 10th March 1947, (Ex. 2(a)) allowed the objection holding that S. 10-C, Court of Wards Act would be a bar to that execution proceeding, at least so far as the share under the Court of Wards was concerned. At this an objection was taken by the remaining judgment-debtors that the decree could not be executed in the absence of the excluded co-sharers. The Subordinate Judge by his order, dated 30th May 1947, allowed this objection, and the execution case was struck off. 4. At this an objection was taken by the remaining judgment-debtors that the decree could not be executed in the absence of the excluded co-sharers. The Subordinate Judge by his order, dated 30th May 1947, allowed this objection, and the execution case was struck off. 4. The landlord filed another execution, Rent Execution case No. 5 of 1947, on 9th September 1947 which is the subject-matter of this appeal. He excluded the one-sixth share of the minor who was then under the Court of Wards, and limited his claim to five-sixths of the decree, and he asked for five-sixths share of the tenure of the other putnidars to be put up to sale. The judgment-debtors objected The Subordinate Judge, First Court, Hooghly, by his judgment, dated 22nd December 1947, overruled the objections, and against this the two appeals have been filed by the two sets of judgment-debtors as mentioned before. 5. The first point that has been taken by Mr. Chakravarti appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtors is that the present proceeding in execution is barred by res judicata by reason of the previous order, dated 30th May 1947, in Rent Execution Case No. 7 of 1945. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the decision: It is not disputed that in view of the provisions of S. 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act the decree in this case which was passed for arrears of rent due in respect of the tenure cannot be executed except by the sale of the entire tenure in question. But as the names of some of the judgment-debtors have been struck off by the order passed in Misc. Case No. 8/47 in view of the provisions of S. 10-C, Court of Wards Act, 1879, their interest cannot pass by any sale held in this case. So in their absence and in view of the provisions of S. 10-C of the said Act, the entire tenure cannot be sold as required under S. 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act. Hence the objection is allowed but without any orders as to costs. The execution case be struck off with costs as being not maintainable. So in their absence and in view of the provisions of S. 10-C of the said Act, the entire tenure cannot be sold as required under S. 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act. Hence the objection is allowed but without any orders as to costs. The execution case be struck off with costs as being not maintainable. It is apparent that the question whether the execution is to be taken against the entire tenure, or could be limited only to the shares of the persons against whom the decree was being executed was not in question at all before the Sub-ordinate Judge in that execution case. The decree-holder's right to proceed against five sixths of the tenure was not at all in issue in that execution case. So the incidental decision that the execution is to be against the entire tenure was only an incidental decision, and therefore, no question of res judicata arises. 6. The next question which has been urged is that the decree-holder cannot at his option break up the liability without the consent of the judgment-debtors. There is nothing in law to prevent a decree-holder from giving up part of his claim and executing his decree only for a portion. He certainly cannot split up his claim and ask for separate execution proceedings to be started in regard to each particular portion of the claim, but there is nothing to prevent him from starting execution proceedings with regard to part of the claim provided that he does not proceed with the other part. Subsequently, he is not allowed in law to proceed with the part which was not proceeded with before. Therefore, in the present case, there is nothing in law to prevent the decree-holder from relinquishing one-sixth share of the decretal dues and proceeding with five-sixths of his dues. 7. The third point which was stressed is the really interesting point, viz., whether the decree-holder under S. 168-A Bengal Tenancy Act can limit execution to a part of the tenure, or whether he has got to bring the whole sixteen annas of the tenure to sale; in other words what is the meaning of the words "entire tenure." 8. Section 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act first goes on to say that a decree for arrears of rent due in respect of a tenure or holding, whether having the effect of a rent decree or a money decree etc. Section 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act first goes on to say that a decree for arrears of rent due in respect of a tenure or holding, whether having the effect of a rent decree or a money decree etc. shall not be executed by the attachment and sale of any movable or immovable property other than the entire tenure or holding to which the decree or certificate relates. And secondly, it goes on to say in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) that the purchaser at such a sale shall be liable to pay to the decree-holder the balance of the decretal dues not realised by the sale as also: any rent which may have become payable to the decree-holder between the date of the institution of the suit and that date of the confirmation the sale. 9. The question what is meant by entire tenure or holding came up for decision previously before some single Judges of this Court. In a decision reported in Abdur Rasheed Vs. Maharaja Srish Chandra, AIR 1944 Cal 301 , Henderson J. pointed out that on a previous occasion, he had held that S. 168-A, Bengal Tenancy Act was to help the tenants and not the landlords. The learned Judge said- The use of the word 'entire' shows the limits which are placed upon the right of the decree-holder. To hold that although a decree can be satisfied by the sale of a small portion of the holding, the decree holder against his own wishes and in spite of the protest of the judgment-debtor is compelled to bring the whole tenure to sale, would be to the disadvantage of the tenant. He, therefore, followed his previous unreported decision. The matter again came up before G.N. Das J. in an unreported decision, printed at p. 5, Part. II of the paper book, in which the learned Judge followed the decision of Henderson J. in the above case. He pointed out that S. 168A spoke of decrees for arrears of rent, whether having the effect of a rent decree or a money decree which contemplated a decree which was obtained against some of the judgment-debtors. II of the paper book, in which the learned Judge followed the decision of Henderson J. in the above case. He pointed out that S. 168A spoke of decrees for arrears of rent, whether having the effect of a rent decree or a money decree which contemplated a decree which was obtained against some of the judgment-debtors. The learned Judge then said, If the literal sense of the words 'entire tenure to which the decree relates' used in S. 168A is given effect to, it would compel the decree-holder to levy execution not merely against the judgment-debtors against whom the decree for rent was obtained in respect of their interest in the tenure, but also in respect of the interest in the tenure owned by persons not parties to the decree. Such a construction of S. 168A, Ben. Ten. Act would not be reasonable. With these observations of the learned Judges, we are in full agreement. 10. Mr. Chakravarti has contended that it would create anomaly in view of cl. (b) of S.168A(1) by which the purchaser would be liable to pay the balance of the decretal dues as also the rent payable to the decree-holder for a period sub-sequent to the institution of the suit leading to the tale. He has also urged that this will cause hardship to the auction-purchaser. The short reply to this is that the auction-purchaser has the option not to purchase under such terms whilst the hardship that will be caused to the judgment-debtors, as pointed out by G.N. Das J. would be one in which they would have no option. When an auction purchaser makes a purchase of a part of a tenure or holding, he will know what he is purchasing and what he will be required to pay for it, and if he so wishes, he need not purchase the same. Secondly, the wording in cl. (b) of sub S. (1) is "any rent which may have become payable to the decree-holder" etc. It does not say rent for what share. If the entire tenure or holding is merely a term showing the limit and if the whole includes the part, then there is nothing to prevent an interpretation that the rent payable will be rent payable for the interest that is sold by the decree-holder. It does not say rent for what share. If the entire tenure or holding is merely a term showing the limit and if the whole includes the part, then there is nothing to prevent an interpretation that the rent payable will be rent payable for the interest that is sold by the decree-holder. In our view, the two decisions of the Single Judges, referred to before, were right, and cl. (a) of S. 168A(1) means that the decree-holder cannot proceed against any other property of the judgment-debtor or judgment-debtors, but he must confine himself only to the tenure or holding. That is the limit. Beyond that he cannot go. But within the limit of the tenure or holding, there is nothing, in our opinion, to prevent him from further limiting the sale to the interest or interests of the judgment-debtor or judgment-debtors against whom he is proceeding, as this will be for the protection of tenants and will save tenants from harassment. Under the circumstances, the contentions urged by Mr. Chakravarti must fail. 11. Finally, it has been argued by Mr. Chakravarti, and Mr. Mukherji, appearing for the appellants in Appeal No. 52, that by an arrangement between the putnidars, the cosharers divided the mouzas amongst themselves. Separate accounts were opened in the zamindars' sherista, but there was no splitting up of the tenure or sub-division under S. 88, Ben. Ten Act. Pronab Mukherjee whose estate was under the Court of Wards possessed exclusively 35 mauzas. The contention is that by executing the decree against five-sixths interest in the tenure, the interest of Pronab would be affected, as the auction purchaser would have an interest also in the mehals in the direct possession of the Court of Wards on behalf of Pronab and this will be against S. 10-c, Court of Wards Act. It was pointed out by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Promode Chandra Sinha Sarma and Others Vs. Narendra Narain Majumdar Choudhury and Others, AIR 1938 Cal 297 that S. 10-c, Court of Wards Act is for the protection of the minor under the Court of Wards and is not for the protection of other co-judgment-debtors. Secondly, it may be pointed out that it will be a question between the auction-purchaser and the Court of Wards when the auction-purchaser takes possession of the interest he has purchased. Secondly, it may be pointed out that it will be a question between the auction-purchaser and the Court of Wards when the auction-purchaser takes possession of the interest he has purchased. It will be a question of what the five-sixths interest is that he has purchased. Therefore, as far as the present execution proceedings are concerned, S. 10-c is no bar. Under the circumstances, the order of the Subordinate Judge being right is upheld, and both the appeals are dismissed, each party bearing its own costs in this Court. The amount deposited for staying execution of the decree will be adjusted against the decretal dues. Blank, J. 12. I agree.