Court upholds revenue sale jurisdiction, annuls putni tenure related to estate sold, interprets kabuliyat as creating indivisible tenure.

The court determined that the revenue sale was within jurisdiction, valid, and upheld the annulment of the putni tenure to the extent it related to the estate sold. The interpretation of the kabuliyat revealed the creation of one indivisible tenure. The court held that Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Laws allowed for the annulment of part of an under-tenure within the estate purchased. The Full Bench decision affirmed the annulment of the under-tenure within the estate sold, dismissing the appeal and ordering each party to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the revenue sale
2. Validity of the revenue sale
3. Annulment of the putni tenure
4. Interpretation of the kabuliyat
5. Applicability of Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Laws

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Sale:
The plaintiffs initially contended that the revenue sale was premature and without jurisdiction. The trial court initially decreed the suit on this point alone, finding the sale to be without jurisdiction. However, upon remand and further evidence, it was concluded that the Collector had jurisdiction to hold the sale. This finding was not challenged further by the plaintiffs.

2. Validity of the Revenue Sale:
The plaintiffs argued that the revenue sale was invalid due to various irregularities, making it liable to be annulled under Section 33 of the Revenue Sale Laws. The trial court, however, found against the plaintiffs on this point, determining that the sale was neither irregular nor ultra vires. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge on appeal.

3. Annulment of the Putni Tenure:
The core issue was whether the putni tenure, which was created under three estates, could be annulled in part by the purchaser of one of the estates. The trial court held that the putni could be annulled under Section 37 of Act 11 of 1859, to the extent it related to the estate sold (Touzi No. 335). The plaintiffs contended that the tenure was indivisible and could not be annulled partially. The appellate court, however, agreed with the trial court's finding that the tenure under Estate No. 335 could be annulled.

4. Interpretation of the Kabuliyat:
The determination of whether the kabuliyat created one indivisible tenure or three separate tenures was crucial. The kabuliyat recited that the rent was assessed at Rs. 9500 annually, distributed among the three estates. Despite the detailed distribution of rent among the estates, the court concluded that the kabuliyat created only one tenure, as the document consistently referred to the putni mahal in the singular and provided a single security for the tenure.

5. Applicability of Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Laws:
The plaintiffs argued that Section 37 did not allow for the annulment of part of an under-tenure. They relied on the case of Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd., which held that a tenure could not be partially annulled. The court, however, found this decision to be unsound and contrary to the primary objective of Section 37, which is the protection of revenue. The court reasoned that the auction purchaser should be able to annul the tenure to the extent it is under the estate purchased, to ensure the estate remains adequate security for Government revenue. The court referred the matter to a Full Bench to resolve the conflict with the earlier decision in Ashamoyi Basu.

Full Bench Decision:
The Full Bench was tasked with deciding whether a purchaser of an entire estate sold for arrears of revenue could annul an under-tenure created under multiple estates, as far as it lies within the estate sold. The Full Bench concluded that the patni interest, to the extent it was under Touzi No. 335, was an under-tenure within the meaning of Section 37 and could be annulled. The court held that the decision in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. was not correctly decided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs in all courts.

---