Judgment Ramaswami, J. 1. The question in this case is whether the Munsif of Patna acted beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., in proceedings in execution of a rent decree. 2. The petitioners had obtained the rent decree in question on the 23-9-1948, as regards a holding of the area of 1 bigha 6 kathas, 9 dhurs comprising plot No. 198 under Khata No. 100 and plot No. 309 under khata No. 101, in village Sadiqpur. The rent decree was obtained against one Mundar Kuer who was a recorded tenant. The opposite party, however, claimed that they had purchased the entire holding on the basis of a sale deed dated 2-12-1937, long before the institution of the rent suit. The opposite party further claimed that after the execution o£ the Kebala they obtained possession of the holding and gave it in thica to Sanichar Sao through a registered document. The main objection of the opposite party was that the petitioners were not 16 annas landlords with respect to the holding but they were entitled to only 6 annas share and on this ground it was contended that the decree had not the effect of a rent decree and Section 170, Bihar Tenancy Act, did not constitute a bar. The learned Munsif examined the question whether the petitioners were 16 annas landlords, and upon a consideration of the evidence adduced came to the finding that the case of the opposite party on his point was true and the petitioners were only 6 annas landlords of the holding in dispute. Accordingly, the Munsif held that the decree obtained by the petitioners was a money decree and the opposite party could prefer the claim under Order 21, Rule 58 and get the holding released from attachment. In support of this rule, Mr. Syed Akbar Hussain presented the argument that the learned Munsif was in error in holding that the opposite party could prefer a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, in the execution proceeding. In support of this rule, Mr. Syed Akbar Hussain presented the argument that the learned Munsif was in error in holding that the opposite party could prefer a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, in the execution proceeding. The argument of learned Counsel is founded upon the terms of Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act which states: "Rules 58 to 63 and 89 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not apply to a tenure or holding (or portion of a holding) attached in execution of a decree for arrears due (in respect of the tenure or holding.)" 3. The contention of learned Counsel is that Sec.170 does not in specific terms refer to a rent decree, and there is no warrant for holding that the section operates as a bar only if the decree obtained by the landlord was a rent decree in execution of which the tenure or holding could be sold for its own arrears. In my opinion, the argument of learned Counsel proceeds upon a misconception. It is true that Sec.170 does not in express terms refer to a rent decree, but the meaning of the section is clear if it is read in the context of Sec.158-B, which explains under what conditions the tenure or holding would pass in execution of a decree. 4. Sec.158B states: "Where a tenure or holding ......is sold in execution of -- (a) a decree for arrears of rent due in respect (of the tenure or holding) .. the tenure or holding ......shall, subject to the provisions of sec. 4. Sec.158B states: "Where a tenure or holding ......is sold in execution of -- (a) a decree for arrears of rent due in respect (of the tenure or holding) .. the tenure or holding ......shall, subject to the provisions of sec. 28, pass to the purchaser, if such decree was obtained by --(i) a sole landlord: or(ii) the entire body of landlords : or (iii) one or more cosharer landlords who has or have sued for the rent due to all the co-sharers in respect of the entire tenure or holding and made all the remaining cosharers parties defendant to the suit......" Sec.158B, Sub-section (2) states that when the application mentioned in Sec.158A is made and the decree holder wants to proceed against the tenure or holding in respect of which the decree was obtained, the Court executing the decree shall, before proceeding to sell the tenure or the holding, give to the parties to the decree notice of the application and of the date on which the sale proclamation shall be drawn up, and may, notwithstanding anything contained in Civil P. C., 1908, simultaneously issue attachment. The bar of Sec.170 only applies when the tenure or holding is attached in execution of a decree for arrears due in respect of the tenure or holding. But holding may be attached in execution of a decree for arrears only when the decree-holder proceeds in the manner stated in Sec.158B of the Act. The decree-holder cannot proceed under this section unless the decree was obtained by a sole landlord; or the entire body of landlords; or one or more cosharer landlords who has or have sued for the rent due to all the cosharers in respect of the entire tenure or holding and made all the remaining cosharers parties defendant to the suit. The conclusion must be drawn that Sec.170 will bar a claim preferred under Order 21, Rule 58 only when the decree which is obtained has the force of a rent decree in the sense that it was obtained by a sole landlord, or me entire body of landlords, or one or more cosharer landlords who has or hare sued for the rent due to all the cosharers in respect of the entire holding and made all the remaining cosharers parties defendant to the suit. It is manifest that Sec.170 must be construed to mean that the bar of that section would only apply if the decree-holder is 16 annas landlord of the holding or he being a cosharer landlord has sued for the entire rent and made the remaining cosharers parties defendant to the suit. In the present case the petitioners claimed that they were 16 annas landlords of the holding and had obtained a rent decree as such, but upon an examination of the evidence the learned Munsif has found that the claim of the petitioners was untrue and they were entitled to only 6 annas share of the rent of the holding. In view of this finding it is plain that the decree obtained by the petitioners has not the force of a rent decree that the petitioners cannot execute the decree in the manner provided in Sec.158B and that the Munsif is not barred from entertaining the claim preferred by the opposite party under the provisions of Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act. The contention of Mr. Akbar Hussain must, therefore, fail. 5. This view is supported by authorities. In -- Maharaj Singh V/s. Anath Nath Bose, AIR 1946 Pat. 292(A), the landlord got a separate takhta by a Civil Court partition and thereafter instituted a suit for rent for his share only and got a decree. In the course of the execution a claim was preferred under Order 21, Rule 58, which was allowed by the Munsif. It was argued in the High Court that Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act operated as a bar. The argument was rejected and it was held by Meredith, J. that the suit was not a rent suit & the decree obtained was not a rent decree under the Tenancy Law, the suit not having been framed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.148A, Bihar Tenancy Act. In the earlier case, - Chhater Kumari Debi V/s. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1937 Pat 278 (B), a similar view was expressed by a Bench of this Court that Sec.170 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 18S5, operates as a bar to the maintainability of a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if it is not disputed that the decree-holder is the landlord of the tenure or holding and that the decree is for the rent due in respect thereof. There is a passage in the judgment of Khaja Mohammad Noor, J., which is relevant in this context: "It was held by the Pull Bench of the Calcutta High Court in -- Amrita Lal v Nemai Chandra, 28 Cal 382, (P.B.) (C), that a claim under Sec.278, Civil P. C., (now Order 21, Rule 58) was barred under Sec.170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act if it is not disputed that the decree-holder is the landlord of the tenure or holding and that the decree is for the rent due in respect of it. A claimant cannot be allowed to plead that the decree has been obtained against a wrong person. This decision has been uniformly followed in this Court (See -- Deo Nandan Prasad V/s. Pirthi Narayan, AIR 1933 Pat 33 (D). --Dwarka Singh V/s. Nema Singh, AIR 1929 Pat 195 (E), and -- Surpat Singh V/s. Shital Singh, AIR 1936 Pat 480(F). It was held in these cases that if a claimant does not deny that the holding (or in this case the tenure) was held under the decree-holder and that rent was due thereon but contends that the decree has been passed against a wrong person, he cannot maintain the claim case. Generally speaking the position is this : If it can be shown that the decree was not a rent decree a third party can file objections under Order 21, Rule 58 for instance, if it appears that the plaintiff is not the 16 annas landlord of the tenure or holding, or that suit was in respect of a portion of a holding or tenure or that rents for two or more holdings or tenures had been claimed in one and the same suit, the claim is entertainable, but if the decree is a rent decree but against a wrong person the claim is barred". A similar view has been expressed in AIR 1933 Pat, 32 (D) in which Dhavie, J. States: "The question, however, whether the section bars a claim under Order 21 Rule 58, when the claimant asserts that the decree under execution was not a rent decree at all, but only a money decree, was not before the Pull Bench. A similar view has been expressed in AIR 1933 Pat, 32 (D) in which Dhavie, J. States: "The question, however, whether the section bars a claim under Order 21 Rule 58, when the claimant asserts that the decree under execution was not a rent decree at all, but only a money decree, was not before the Pull Bench. The section pre-supposes a rent decree, and it has been repeatedly held that a claim may be made under Order 21, Rule 58, on the ground that the decree is not a decree of the kind presupposed in the section. Claims have, for instance, been allowed where it was shown that the subject-matter of the suit was not a tenure or holding, or that the decree was not a rent decree because the landlord had brought his suit in respect of more than one tenure or holding, or not being the sole landlord of the tenure or holding, had failed to observe the special provisions of Sec.148-A without which it was impossible for him to obtain a rent decree. No such claim was made in the present proceedings; the claimant merely said that he was the recorded raiyat and that the defendants against whom the landlord had proceeded were his (the claimants) under raiyats. Judging from the order under revision, the claimant did not deny that the decreee holder was the sole landlord of the holding in suit or that arrears of rent were due in respect of it. It has been contended that he was entitled to show that the decree under execution was not a rent decree, but it is plain that he was not entitled to show this by establishing that the decree was obtained against a wrong party". In support of his argument Mr. AKbar Hussain placed strong reliance upon -- Harihar Prasad V/s. Prasad Mahton, A. I. R. 1950 Pat. 565 (G). But the ratio of that case is entirely different. In that case a decree for arrears of rent was obtained in respect of a holding. Subsequently a writ of attachment and a sale proclamation was issued. AKbar Hussain placed strong reliance upon -- Harihar Prasad V/s. Prasad Mahton, A. I. R. 1950 Pat. 565 (G). But the ratio of that case is entirely different. In that case a decree for arrears of rent was obtained in respect of a holding. Subsequently a writ of attachment and a sale proclamation was issued. A third party applied under Order 21, Rule 58, for release of a portion of the holding purchased by him from the tenants and contended that as he had not been impleaded in the rent suit, the decree for rent passed in favour of the landlords would have the effect of a money decree, and hence he was entitled to have his claim adjudicated under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., and get a release of the portion purchased by him from attachment and sale. It was held in this state of facts that Sec.170 was a complete bar to the investigation of the claim set up by the third party. The reason given for the decision was that when the landlord proceeds under special provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and obtains a rent decree, the tenure or the holding will pass in execution even though some of the persons interested in the tenure or holding may not have been impleaded as defendants. It was explained that Section 170, Bihar Tenancy Act, operated as a bar because tenants did not deny that the decree-holder was the landlord, or that there were actually arrears due for the holding for the years in suit in respect of which the rent decree was passed, but the decree was attacked on the ground that it had been wrongly obtained against the original tenant who had sold the holding to the claimant. Mr. Akbar Hussain pointed out that in A. I. R. 1950 Pat 565 (G) the Bench followed a uniform course of decisions--AIR 1933 Pat. 32 (D), AIR 1936 Pat. 480 (P), A. I. R. 1937 Pat. 278 (B) and --Alakhnandan Prosad V/s. Mt. Bibi Salma, A. I. R. 1937 Pat. 341 (H). Upon the principle of Stare decisis the decision in A. I. R. 1950 Pat. 565 (G) may perhaps be explained, but it is not necessary in this case to go into the question whether the decision has been rightly arrived at. 278 (B) and --Alakhnandan Prosad V/s. Mt. Bibi Salma, A. I. R. 1937 Pat. 341 (H). Upon the principle of Stare decisis the decision in A. I. R. 1950 Pat. 565 (G) may perhaps be explained, but it is not necessary in this case to go into the question whether the decision has been rightly arrived at. As I have already shown, the material facts of the present case are manifestly different, for the petitioners have obtained the decree not in the character of 16 annas landlords, since it is found they possessed only 6 annas share, and the cosharer landlords who are entitled to 10 annas share of the land were not impleaded in the rent suit. The present case cannot, therefore, be brought within the principle of -- Harihar Prasads Case, AIR 1950 Pat. 565 (G) or the earlier authorities upon which it is based. 6 For the reasons assigned, I think that the claim preferred under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil procedure, by the opposite party was not barred by the provisions of Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act, and that the Munsif of Patna had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and decide it upon materials presented before him. The application must, therefore, be dismissed. As the opposite party has not appeared, there will be no order for costs. Das, J. 7 I agree.