JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff purchased a 2-annas 13-gandas odd share in a zemindari (Pargana Taherpur) in the year 1893. She brought a suit for rent. No 620 of 1899, against the defendants as patnidars of Sundery Mouzas in the Pergana and obtained a decree on certain terms. She again brought another rent suit No. 874 of 1904, for the arrears for the years 1307 to 1310, and again obtained a decree on the same terms, namely, that she could not hold the defendants personally liable except for any surplus not realised from the sale of the putni, and that, so long as the persons then in possession of the putni did not get themselves registered in her sheresta, she was to bring suits for arrears against the defendants and obtain decrees in similar terms. In execution of the later decree of 1904, the plaintiff purchased the putni on the 21st of November 1905; the sale being confirmed on the 22nd of December 1905. The present suit was then brought by the plaintiff for the arrears due previous to the confirmation of her sale, i.e., up to 21st December 1905, praying for a personal decree against the defendants: amongst other things, the contesting defendants pleaded that the putni mehal had been sold to a third party in 1304 and they were neither in possession of the mehal nor liable for the rent. They also pleaded that the plaintiff being a part proprietor had acquired no title by her purchase. We are not concerned with the last plea inasmuch as the suit is for arrears accrued due before the purchase. The only question in controversy is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a personal decree against the defendants.
2. According to the decree of 1904 already mentioned, the plaintiff cannot obtain a personal decree pure and simple against the defendants. She can hold them personally liable only for any surplus remaining unsatisfied after the sale of the property in arrear. That property she does not want to sell, having purchased it herself, she cannot, therefore, get any personal decree.
3. A second aspect in which the case may e viewed is this: the plaintiff is, admittedly, a co-sharer landlord. The whole putni rent is Rs. 562 and her claim is for Rs. 173-8 in her share. The decree that she obtained in 1904 was, therefore, a moneydecree. See Beni Madhub v. Jaod Ali 17 C. 390; Durga Charan v. Kali Prasanna 3 C.W.N. 583 : 26 C. 727; Sita Nath v. Atmaram 4 C.W.N. 571. If that be so, the purchase is subject to the liability for the rent accrued due prior to the sale. See Moharanee Dassya v. Harendra Lal Roy 1 C.W.N. 458; Peary Mohan v. Sreeram Chandra Bose 6 C.W.N. 794. These circumstances differentiate the cases relied on by the learned Vakil for the appellant: Peary Mohan Mookerjee v. Kumaris Chander Sirkar 19 C.790 and Surendro Nath Pal Chowdhri v. Tincowry Dasi 20 C. 247.
4. In this view of the case, the appeal is dismissed but without costs in this Court.
