JUDGMENT 1. In this case, a putni was sold on the 14th May 1904 under sec. 11 of Reg. VIII of 1819. The first clause of that section says, "Any taluk or saleable tenure that may be disposed of at a public sale, under the rules of this Regulation for arrears of rent due on account of it, is sold free from all incumbrances that may have accrued upon it by act of the defaulting proprietor, his representatives or assignees, unless the right of making such incumbrances shall have been expressly vested in the holder by a stipulation to that effect in the written engagements under which the said taluk may have been held."' In the present case, the existence of a right to make such incumbrances was not proved and, the Magistrate says, was not even asserted before him. On the 30th June following an order was made for the purchaser of the taluk to be put in possession. But on the same day a suit was brought by the dur-putnidar to set aside the sale. He applied on the 6th July for an injunction to restrain the purchaser from taking possession, but this application was refused on the 19th September. On the 19th of July a proclamation was issued declaring that the new incumbent had acquired all the rights and privileges of the zemindar and that he alone was entitled to make collections. 2. The 3rd clause of sec. 15 of the Regulation declares that "should the late incumbent or his late under-tenants continue to oppose the entry of the new purchaser, notwithstanding the issuing of such a proclamation, or should there be reason to apprehend a breach of the peace on the part of any one, the aid of the Police officers and of all other public officers who may be at hand capable of affording assistance shall be given to the new purchaser on his presenting a written application for the same and in the event of any affray or breach of the peace accruing, the entire responsibility shall vest with the party opposing the lawful attempt of the purchaser to assume his rights." 3. In the present case, the Petitioners claim to be still in actual possession as dur-putnidars of the late incumbent. In the present case, the Petitioners claim to be still in actual possession as dur-putnidars of the late incumbent. This proclamation was served upon them as appears from the return of the nazir and the evidence of one witness whose deposition has been referred to. It appears that under the first clause of sec. 15, the zemindar so far as was in his power has put the purchaser in possession. He has given him the usual amaldustik together with the notice to the raiyats and others to attend and pay their rents thenceforward to the new incumbent. It appears in fact that everything has been done on the part of the Revenue Court and of the zemindar himself to put the purchaser in possession. 4. Notwithstanding the proclamation and the other proceedings which have been taken in this connection, we find that the Petitioners have continued to remain in possession and have insisted upon collecting rents from the raiyats. 5. In this state of things, it was reported by the Police that in consequence of the action of the Petitioners a breach of the peace was likely to occur, and upon that report, the Magistrate took proceedings on the 13th of August against the Petitioners under sec. 107, Cr. P.C. 6. The only question is whether, under the circumstances, the act of the Petitioners in continuing to collect the rents from the raiyats was wrongful. 7. The Magistrate has found that it was wrongful and likely to cause a breach of the peace. 8. It is contended before us that the question whether the act of collecting rents is wrongful or not must depend upon the issue of the suit which was filed by the Petitioners on the 30th June and which is now pending. 9. It appears to us that the effect of the putni Regulation is to render any such acts unlawful until such time as the sale shall have been set aside. We are of opinion that, in the circumstances, the Magistrate was perfectly right in holding that the collection was wrongful and likely to cause a breach of the peace and therefore he was justified in making the order binding down the Petitioners to keep the peace under sec. 107, Cr. P.C. The rule, therefore, must be discharged.