Rajamannar, C.J.- In our opinion, this appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. The defendant who is the appellant before us claims under a purchase in court-auction in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landholder. The defendant was an assignee of that decree. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims under a purchase from the original pattadar. Though the defendant’s purchase was long after the plaintiff’s purchase, the contention on behalf of the appellant was that the rent being a first charge on the holding under the Estates Land Act, as his purchase was in execution of a rent decree in the Revenue Court, as purchaser therein, he was entitled to the property in preference to the plaintiff who was a purchaser from the pattadar. The learned Judge, Panchapagesa Sastri, J., refused to accept this contention. He held following the decisions in Vyraperumal v. Alagappa1, Venkata Lakshmamma v. Seetayya2, and Suryanarayana v. Ramachandrudu3, that the statutory charge was available only in so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant continued, and therefore, an ex-landholder or a bare assignee of a rent decree alone would not be entitled to the benefit of the statutory charge. More or less a similar view was taken by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in The Official Receiver, West Tanjore v. Sakkuwar Bai Ammal4. The learned Judge also relied upon the decision in Kayakkool Pillati Krishnan Atiyoti v. Thayyallathil Moosa5, which no doubt dealt with a rent decree under the Malabar Tenancy Act, but which according to the learned Judge, was based on a principle which could be applied to cases arising under the Madras Estates Land Act as well. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff’s purchase must prevail as against the purchase by the appellant, and dismissed the second appeal. The charge for rent declared under section 5 of the Madras Estates Land Act obviously enures only to the benefit of the landholder. The short question, therefore, is whether the defendant who obtained an assignment of the rent decree could be held to be a ‘landholder’ within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 3(5) of the Act. The short question, therefore, is whether the defendant who obtained an assignment of the rent decree could be held to be a ‘landholder’ within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 3(5) of the Act. The definition is in the following terms:- “‘Landholder’ means a person owning an estate or part thereof and includes every person entitled) to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor-in-title or of any order of a competent Court or of any provision of law.” It is clear to us that whatever may be said of other persons who are transferees of arrears of rent as such, a person in the position of the defendant who only obtained an assignment of a decree for rent, would not be a ‘landholder ‘within the meaning of the definition. No authority was cited before us by learned counsel for the appellant for the contrary view. It follows that the defendant, when he was executing the decree assignment of which he had obtained, was doing so, not as a landholder within the meaning of the Act. He, therefore, could not have the benefit of the charge in section 5 of the Act, which enures only to the landholder. We are not here concerned with the question whether a landholder would cease to have this charge if at the time of enforcing the right of sale he had ceased to be such by reason of a previous transfer. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar on the observations of Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in the Full Bench decision in Venkata Lakshmamma Gam v. Achi Reddi1. We may preface by saying that the decision of the Full Bench has itself nothing whatever to do with the question which falls for decision in the present case. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar on the observations of Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in the Full Bench decision in Venkata Lakshmamma Gam v. Achi Reddi1. We may preface by saying that the decision of the Full Bench has itself nothing whatever to do with the question which falls for decision in the present case. Sadasiva Ayyar, J., observed:- “The definition of a landholder makes even a bare assignee of an arrear of rent from the owner of the estate, or even a part thereof, a landholder for the purpose of enabling him to pursue his remedies under the Act as a ‘landholder ‘.” He referred to an earlier obiter dictum of his in Venkata Lakshmamma v. Seetayya 2, that a person who does not hold the present position of a landholder is not entitled to pursue the summary remedy under the Act for recovery of rent due to him, and said that he considered that opinion unsound. All this has nothing to do with the present case which concerns an assignee of a bare decree for the recovery of arrears of rent. We fail to see how such a person can claim the benefit of the charge, under section 5 of the Madras Estates Land Act. We agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiff’s title would prevail. The L.P.A. is, therefore, dismissed with costs. K.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.