1. These 17 appeals are appeals in suits for rent. In 16 of the appeals it appears that the amount claimed did not exceed Rs. 100 and it is, therefore, conceded that under the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no second appeal lies.
2. It has been suggested to us that in these cases we should treat the appeals as applications under Section 115 of the CPC.
3. But we are not prepared to take this course in these cases, as it appears thus that the plaintiff-appellant has or had other remedies.
4. These sixteen appeals (Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 259 and 270 to 284 of 1914) are, therefore, dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
5. In the remaining Appeal No. 269 of 1914 the amount claimed exceeds Rs. 100 and, therefore, a second appeal lies.
6. The appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, by which he remands the suit for retrial with the direction that one Chandi Pershad, whose title to rent had been set up by the tenant defendants, should be made a party to the suit.
7. As the law now stands, it is well settled that when in suits for rent the tenant defendants set up the title of a third person, such third person is no necessary party to the proceeding. The order of remand, in our opinion, is clearly wrong.
8. We set aside the Subordinate Judge's order and remand the case to him so that he may re-hear the appeal before him and dispose of it according to law.
9. Costs will abide the result.
V.B/R.K
10. Order set aside;
11. Case Remanded.