JUDGMENT 1. In support of this appeal two points have been taken. The. first is that on the findings of the lower Appellate Court that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 held a taluka lease under the original zemindar and that plots Nos. 10, 11 and 12 out of the lands covered by that lease were protected from avoidance of the lease under the provisions of sec. 37, cl. (4) of Act XI of 1859, therefore the same protection would extend to all the other plots covered by the same lease and would accordingly cover plots Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 9 in respect of which the lower Appellate Court has held that the Defendants have failed to prove that they hold protected interests. The learned vakil In support of this contention has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Kiran Chunder v. Naimuddi ILR 30 Cal. 498 (1903). That case seems however to be distinguishable from the present case for in that the Defendant claimed protection in respect of two plots of land only, and it was held that he was entitled to the protection because the 2 plots were covered by one lease, and that on one of them a house, garden and tank had been constructed which was sufficient under the provisions of sec. 37 of Act XI of 1859 to save him from ejectment. The effect of that case has however been considered in the later case of Najemoddin v. Syed Hassan 9 C.W.N. 852 (1905). The learned Judges in their judgment in that case point out that the current of the decisions of this Court has been in favour of the view that where a Defendant claims exemption from the Provisions of the Bengal Sale Law which entitle a purchaser to annul incumbrances, In respect of lands in his possession the benefit of the 4th exception to sec. 37 of the Act must be limited only to such portions of laud as are covered by buildings, tanks etc and cannot be extended to cover those lands Included In the lease on which buildings tanks etc. have not been constructed. This view was taken in a series of cases to which the learned Judges refer and was followed in the case of Makar Ali v. Shyama Charan 3 C.W.N. 212(1893). have not been constructed. This view was taken in a series of cases to which the learned Judges refer and was followed in the case of Makar Ali v. Shyama Charan 3 C.W.N. 212(1893). We are not prepared in the present case to differ from the course which has been adopted by this Court in a long series of decisions, and we are not prepared to accept the contention that the learned Judges in deciding the case of Kiran Chunder v. Naimuddi I.L.R.30 Cal. 498 (sic) intended to adopt any novel principle. We think therefore that the view which the lower Appellate Court has taken Is correct under the law that the Defendants were entitled to claim exemption from annulment of their lease in respect of those plots on which the lower Appellate Court held that they had proved that their home-stead, tank etc had been constructed, these plots being plots Nos. 10, 11 and 12. 2. As regards plots Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8, the lower Appellate Court held for other reasons that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim possession of them from the Defendants. 3. The second point which has been taken is that the Plaintiff as the assignee of a portion of the land which was purchased at the revenue sale was not legally entitled after the expiry of 5 years from the date of the sale to bring the present suit to avoid incumbrances. We find however that so long ago as 1874 in the case of Koylash Chunder v. Jubur Ali 22 W.R.29 (1874) it was held that an assignee was entitled to bring a suit to avoid incumbrances and all that was laid down in that decision was that ordinarily the suit should be brought within a reasonable time. Since then the Indian Limitation Act has been passed which provides by Art. 121 of the second schedule, a limitation of 12 years for bringing such an action. The view taken by the learned Judges in the case of Koylash Chunder v. Jubur Ali 22 W.R.29 (1874) has been followed by this Court in the later cases of Shosi Bhusan v. Kramtullah 10 C.W.N. 148 (1905) and of Narayan Chandra v. Kasiswar 1 0. L. J. 579 (1902). 4. The view taken by the learned Judges in the case of Koylash Chunder v. Jubur Ali 22 W.R.29 (1874) has been followed by this Court in the later cases of Shosi Bhusan v. Kramtullah 10 C.W.N. 148 (1905) and of Narayan Chandra v. Kasiswar 1 0. L. J. 579 (1902). 4. We think therefore that there is no substance in either of the two points taken in support of the appeal and we dismiss the appeal with costs. Coxe, J. I agree. It can never have been the intention of the Legislature in my opinion that when a tenant had a taluk of a whole village on a bigha of which he had excavated a tank or made a garden or house the whole village should be exempted from the operation of the sale law or that the garden or house standing on one corner of the land should protect all the remainder of the land covered by that lease. The original object of the fourth clause to sec. 37 appears to have been to protect leases of lands which were used exclusively for dwelling houses, gardens, tanks, etc., but by a long string of decisions of this Court this clause has been construed in favour of the tenants in order to reduce the hardship caused by the operation of the sale law and protection has been given under it to lands on which gardens etc stand even though those lands are held under leases which Include several other lands in the village. I think that at this time of the day it is impossible to go against that string of decision and I agree accordingly that in a case like this where an original talukdar holds lands on a certain portion of which he has excavated a tank or made a garden, he should be entitled to the protection of that portion of the land which is covered by the tank or garden.