Francies W Maclean, C J - (1.)In this suit the plaintiff claimed the whole 16 annas of the rent. It turned out that, at the most, he was entitled only to a 4 annas share, and a decree has accordingly been given for such share. The defendants appeal.
(2.)Their contention is that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree even for, that share. It is argued that the plaintiff sued originally for the whole 16 annas share, but is found entitled only to a 4 anna share of the rent, that his co-sharer landlords are not co-plaintiffs nor defendants, that there is no allegation pr proof of any arrangement between the landlords and the tenants that the tenants could pay each co-sharer his proportionate share of the entire rent and that, in the absence of any such arrangement, the suit is not maintainable This contention is supported by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court, viz., Guni Mahomed v. Moran (1878) I.L.R. 4 Clac. 96 : 2 C.L.R. 371.
(3.)A suit originally of one nature has been converted into a suit of an entirely different nature. As I have pointed out the plaintiff originally claimed 16 annas of the rent. It was found that he was only entitled to 4 annas: but as there was no arrangement between the co- sharers landlords and the tenants as to the payment to each co-sharer of his proportionate share of the rent, I do not see how the suit can be maintained.