1. The plaintiff purchased a portion of the 2nd defendant’s pattah land, and has been holding the same ever since with the exception of a part which he transferred to his wife. The 1st defendant, the Zemindar, has recognised the plaintiff as tenant and accepted rent from him for several years though the puttah continued to stand in the name of the 2nd defendant for the whole land. For the arrears of Fasli 1313 he took proceedings under the Rent Recovery Act against the 2nd defendant and brought to sale the plaintiff’s portion which the 3rd defendant purchased. The plaintiff seeks to set aside the sale as invalid. We agree with his contention. No notice was given to the plaintiff of the arrear or of the attachment. The proceedings therefore, are void as against the plaintiff. Mr. Subrahmania Aiyar relies on Orr v. Rakkumarathi (1905) I.L.R. 29 M. 83 for the view that the landlord is under no obligation to proceed against the real tenant but is at liberty to proceed against the person to whom he chooses to give puttah. We think the landlord is bound to find out who holds the tenant’s interest and proceed against him for the rent in ‘arrear. The case referred to is no authority for the position contended for. The tenancy there was admitted by the landlord. But he still wanted to make in the puttah an entry that the land in question had been sold away. This he was not permitted to do. We must, therefore, hold that the plaintiff’s interest has not been legally sold to the 3rd defendant. See S.A. No. 1213 of 1906.
2. It is argued for the 3rd defendant that he was a bona fide purchaser. No question was raised before the Munsif as to the 2nd defendant having been the ostensible owner. We refuse to entertain the 3rd defendant’s present contention. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif.
3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 will pay the plaintiff’s costs throughout.
4. The memorandum of objections put in by the 1st respondent is dismissed with costs.