JUDGMENT 1. The subject matter of the suit, out of which this appeal arises, is a share of a tank, which the Plaintiff, who is the purchaser at a sale for arrears of Government revenue, sought to recover khas possession of. The tank in question is known by the name of Kala Baochi, The previous history of this tank is rather uncertain; but we find that in 1234 Maghi, this share of the tank, with a piece of agricultural land, was let out to the Defendants; and though there are separate jumas assessed on the two parcels of property demised, yet one rental was fixed and, apparently, the interest thus created has been throughout regarded as one undivided interest, for which one rent was to be paid, and has hitherto been paid. The Defendants are also in occupation of the other portion of the tank under a raiyati lease from the other proprietor thereof. It appears that the tank appertains to two taluks in undefined shares. One of the taluks has been purchased by the Plaintiff at the sale for arrears of Government revenue; and the question that arose in the Court below, and which has also been raised in this Court in second appeal, is whether in regard to this share of the tank the Defendants are protected from ejectment by reason of the provisions of sec. 37 of the Revenue Sale Law, Act XI of 1859. The lower Appellate Court has found that the share of the tank is an integral portion of the agricultural holding. 2. Exception, however, has been taken to this finding by the learned vakil for the Appellant upon the ground that the terms of the grant do not warrant such a finding, it not being shown that the tank is really an appurtenance of the agricultural holding. But it seems to us having regard to the terms of the pattah, taken as a whole, and the conduct of the patties, the rent being paid as one entire rent, and the lessees being permitted to hold the banks of the tank for grazing and horticultural purposes, we may well hold that the finding of the lower Appellate Court in this respect is a finding which was quite warranted in the circumstances of the case. That being so, the next question that arises for consideration is whether in respect to a share of the tank any occupancy right could be acquired. As we have already Indicated, if this share of the tank be regarded (as it has been found) as an integral part of the holding let out to the Defendant, it is rather difficult to hold that it is a separate interest, unconnected with the agricultural holding, and in respect of which a right of occupancy could not be acquired. Our attention has, however, been called to the case of Hari Charan Bose v. Runjit Singh ILR 25 Cal. 917 (1896), as supporting the view that in respect to a share of a land no right of occupancy could be acquired. But on a careful consideration of the judgment of Mr. Justice Banerjee, we do not think that the question then before the Court is the precise question that we have to decide in the present case. The true question there was whether, when a share of a piece of land is let out by one of the shareholders, the interest thus created is a holding within the meaning of sec. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which could be brought to sale under that Act; and it was held by Mr. Justice Banerjee that it could not be so treated, and could not be so brought to sale. But the question that we have to consider is a different one, namely, whether in respect to a piece of property, such as it is in the present case, held as an integral part of an agricultural holding, a raiyati right could be acquired therein. As already indicated, we think that it could be so acquired; and in this view we are supported by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Jardine Skinner & Co. v. Rani Surut Soondari Debi 3 C.L.R. 140 (1878). 3. We might as well state that the question whether in respect to a share of a piece of property a right of occupancy could be acquired does not seem to have been raised in this case in the Court below. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.