William Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. This is a suit brought by a landlord, who is theputnidar, to recover the rent of the durputni.

2. The answer which is made by the defendant is this,-Hesays: a part of the rent I owe you, and I have paid that into Court; as for therest I am not liable to you, because at the time when that rent accrued I hadtransferred the durputni to a purchaser under the provisions of the BengalTenancy Act, Sections 11 and 12, and that transfer, so far as I was concerned,was complete.

3. The answer which the landlord makes to that is this,-Hesays: that is quite true, you did make the transfer you say, but 1 did notreceive notice of it from the Collector, and therefore, notwithstanding thefact that you had transferred your interest, you are still liable for the rent,and the question for us to consider is that question.

4. Section 11 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that everypermanent tenure shall be capable of being transferred. That may or may not bedeclaratory of the old law, but for the purpose of what I am going to say, thatis the law that is created by that Act, and every such tenure is madetransferable by the authority of that Act. Then comes Section 12, which limitsthe power of transfer. If it were not for Section 12, the transfer underSection 11 might be made in any way, either by an unregistered deed, orverbally; but Section 12 of the Act provides a limit, and the limit is this,that the transfer of permanent tenures can be made only by a registeredinstrument. In this particular case, it was made by an instrument which it isadmitted was duly executed, and which it is also admitted was duly registered,and consequently the transfer from the vendor to the vendee was complete. Thencome the other parts of the section, and Sub-section 2 provides a conditionprecedent to the registration, that certain monies shall be paid by the vendorinto the hands of the Registrar before he shall be entitled to the registration,but the registration concludes all that, because the registration could nottake place unless those things had been done, and it is not disputed in thiscase that those things were done, so that the registration is absolutelycomplete.

5. Then comes another sub-section which provides what theRegistrar is to do after the registration, how he is to dispose of the money inhis hands, and what notices he is to give of the fact of registration; but thatseems to us to be a mere question as to how he is to deal with the matter andhow the Collector is to deal with the money when it comes into his hands. But,so far as the transfer is concerned, the only thing which this Act says isnecessary to complete it is registration. That was done, and it seems to methat the transfer was complete as soon as the document was registered.

6. Then is there any reason or possibility to say that,notwithstanding the fact that the transfer was complete, this man stillremained liable to his landlord. The liability here is a liability inconsequence of the estate, and it is admitted that it is an ordinary rule thatthe liability ceases when the estate is transferred and the vendor ceases tohave any estate in the property, but that, in whatever way the transfer may bemade, the liability remains on the original tenant, until notice has been givento the landlord.

7. As to that, it is enough for us to say that the Act isabsolutely silent upon the point, and we do not think that any such conditionof things can be inferred from the provisions of the Act. If the Legislaturehad intended to impose any such limitation upon the right to transfer, we thinkthey would have said so in so many words. They have not done so, and we thinkwe cannot imply it from what they have said.

8. Under these circumstances we think that the Judge waswrong in the view he took of the law in this case, and this appeal must bedecreed with costs.

.

Kristo Lal Singh and Ors. vs. Kristo Bulluv Ghose and Ors.(29.05.1889 - CALHC)