- (1.) I think that we cannot interfere with the judgment of the Court below, though our decision is based on grounds different from those assigned by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff in this case is the mortgagee, and after obtaining foreclosure be sued for possession, and in the month of Magh 1273, he was put into possession. He then brought a suit against the defendant in this case to recover the rents of 1273 and 1274.
(2.) The defendants, who are tenants on the property, admitted that there was a balance due for 1273 and 1274. But they pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask rents from them for a period prior to the date of his obtaining possession; and the Deputy Collector, considering this defence to be good, gave the plaintiff a decree for what was due from Magh 1273, and for the arrears of 1274; and on appeal, the Judge upheld the judgment of the Deputy Collector.
(3.) In the first Court the defendants pleaded payment of the rents of 1273, and produced dakhilas in proof of such payment.;