Patni tenure under multiple estates is annullable pro tanto on revenue sale under Section 37, the Court held.

A patni kabuliyat covering three estates was held to create one tenure, not three separate tenures, because the instrument described a single arrangement, used aggregate rent for the putni mahal, and treated the separate kists as a calculation method only. Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859 was construed as a revenue-protective provision allowing the purchaser at a revenue sale to annul subordinate interests created after settlement, including a tenure extending over more than one estate to the extent it affected the estate sold. The contrary view in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. was rejected as inconsistent with the statute's language and object.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the patni kabuliyat created one tenure under the three estates or three separate tenures; (ii) whether, on a revenue sale of one estate, the purchaser could annul the patni pro tanto so far as it related to the sold estate under Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859; (iii) whether the contrary view in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. was correctly decided.

Issue (i): Whether the patni kabuliyat created one tenure under the three estates or three separate tenures

Analysis: The instrument recited a single putni arrangement over the three estates, described the rent in aggregate, treated the putni mahal in the singular, and provided one security for the tenure. The separate statement of rents and kists by touzi was treated as a mode of calculation and not as evidence of distinct leases.

Conclusion: The kabuliyat created one tenure and not three separate tenures.

Issue (ii): Whether, on a revenue sale of one estate, the purchaser could annul the patni pro tanto so far as it related to the sold estate under Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859

Analysis: Section 37 was read as a revenue-protective provision enabling the auction purchaser of an entire estate to avoid and annul subordinate interests created after settlement, subject only to the express exceptions in the section. A tenure extending over more than one estate was held, for the purposes of the provision, to be annullable to the extent that it lay within the estate sold. The Court rejected the view that such an interest fell outside the section merely because it was not wholly confined to the sold estate.

Conclusion: Yes, the purchaser could annul the patni so far as it related to the estate sold.

Issue (iii): Whether the contrary view in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. was correctly decided

Analysis: The earlier view was held to be inconsistent with the language and object of Section 37 and with the governing principle that the revenue sale purchaser takes the estate free from post-settlement burdens except those expressly saved. The Court approved the broader construction that avoids defeating the revenue-protective scheme of the statute.

Conclusion: No, the decision in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. was not correctly decided.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the patni was liable to partial annulment in respect of the estate sold, and the respondent's title by revenue sale was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859, an under-tenure created under more than one estate is annullable, as to the portion attributable to the estate sold for arrears of revenue, by the purchaser of that estate, unless expressly protected by the statutory exceptions.

---