V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in respect of an ex -proprietary holding.. It appears that a mortgage of a share in the mohal in which this ex -proprietary holding is situated was executed under the provisions of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. The share mortgaged was ten annas and odd. After this mortgage, the persons on whose behalf that Sub -Divisional Officer had executed the mortgage and who are the appellants in this appeal were declared ex -proprietary tenants of certain plots and the ex -proprietary rent payable by them was assessed by the Sub -Divisional Officer. This suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1351 Fasli and Kharif 1352 Fasli in respect of ex -proprietary tenancy. The whole of the rent payable was claimed. The suit in respect of the arrears for 1351 Fasli has been dismissed on the ground that they were already paid but the suit in respect of the rent for Kharif 1352 Fasli has been decreed. The contention of the appellants was that one of the appellants, Shrimati Phool Kunwar was the lambardar and it was she alone who could bring a suit for the whole rent. The respondent was not entitled to bring a suit for recovery of the whole rent of the ex -proprietary tenancy. Both the lower courts, however, overruled this objection holding that under the mortgage deed the respondent had been given the right to realise rent of the ex -proprietary tenancy separately and, therefore, they decreed the suit of the respondent.
(2.) THE finding given by the lower courts has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal. I am inclined to agree with him that the mortgage did not confer any right on the respondent to separately realise the whole rent of the ex -proprietary tenancy. The mortgage was a mortgage of a share in the mohal and not of any specific plots. In such a case, the ex -proprietary tenant is the tenant of the whole proprietary body and not of the mortgagee alone. It is true that the mortgage deed mentioned that the mortgagee would be entitled to receive rents in respect of the property mortgaged but there was also an additional remark that he would be entitled to profits in respect of the property mortgaged. It is obvious that all the words of the deed must be read as a whole and, so read, it would mean that the only right that the mortgage conferred on the respondent was to realise his proportionate rent from the tenant and his proportionate profits in respect of sir plots. It was not a case of a mortgage of specific plots and of proprietary rights being conveyed only in respect of specified plots. In these circumstances, under the terms of the deed itself, the plaintiff -respondent will not be entitled to realise the whole rent. It, however, appears to me that under Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, this suit will still be maintainable. Under Sub -section (l) of Section 246 of the Act, all things required or permitted to be done by co -sharers in a mohal, have to be done by them conjointly. Under Sub -section (4) of that section, whenever the defendant is a tenant who also happens to be a co -sharer, it is not necessary to join that tenant as a plaintiff. In the present case, there are four co -sharers, Viz., the three appellants and the respondent. The suit is for arrears of rent - against the appellants. The appellants, besides being tenants, are co -sharers and, therefore, under Sub -section (4) of Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, it is not necessary to implead them as plaintiffs. This suit brought by the respondent alone can, therefore, be treated as a suit on behalf of all the co -sharers brought by them conjointly. In this case, all the other co -sharers who Were required to be joined under the provisions Of Sub -section (l) of Section 246 of the Act happened to be tenants and, therefore, their joining as plaintiffs is dispensed with under Sub -section (4) of Section 246. This suit is, therefore, a suit which lies competently as a suit on behalf of all the co -sharers. The decree in respect of the whole rent has, therefore, been rightly passed. There is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, I make no orders as to costs. Leave to appeal is refused;