- (1.) This was a suit, on the part of the Land Mortgage Bank, as described in both the lower Courts, for the establishment of a putni right, that is as I take it, for a declaration of the plaintiffs' putni right in the property sued for, by setting aside an order admitting a claim, which was a claim preferred and disposed of by the Court under Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution of a decree obtained by the Land Mortgage Bank. It appears that the Bank had taken a mortgage of putni talook obtained by Chandra Kant Chuckerbutty from Mrs. Elias, and had recovered two decrees against the mortgagor,--one for rent, and another for the sum advanced upon the mortgage; that, in execution of the rent-decree, the Bank had obtained an attachment of the property in dispute, which consists of a two-storied house in one of the villages comprised in the putni, with a garden in which the house is situated; and that, in attaching the property, it was described as the lakhiraj property of the judgment-debtor. Thereupon the zemindar, Mrs. Elias, presented a petition of claim, alleging the property to be in her possession as her hereditary lakhiraj. That claim was allowed, and the present suit was brought within one year of such allowance, upon a new allegation that the house and garden were comprised within the putni granted to Chandra Kant, and upon which the Bank held a mortgage. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their title as mortgagees of the putni and asked for a reversal of the order passed under Section 246. The suit was tried in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen, who considered that the putni did comprehend the premises and garden in question, and gave the plaintiffs a decree. On appeal to the Zilla Court, the Judge considered, both upon the terms of the putni, and also upon a consideration of the conduct of the parties, and all the circumstances of the case, that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that the putni on which they held the mortgage included the disputed house and garden; and that, consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree declaring the same to be included in the putni.
(2.) Against this decision the plaintiffs have appealed specially. They contend, first, that the Judge has wrongly construed the putni potta; and, secondly, that the Judge has omitted to consider a certain letter of Mrs. Elias to the lessee, Chandra Kant, whereby there has been a defect in the investigation which has produced an error in the decision on the merits.
(3.) Mr. Paul, who appeared for the respondent, has argued the negative of these propositions, and has also contended that in point of fact the plaintiffs in this case had no cause of action, and that, however the question of title may stand, the plaint, as it was framed, ought to have been dismissed.;