Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 6, 1906) reversing a decree of the First Subordinate Judge of Chapra (August 16, 1904). The appellant sued to annul a sale held on March 26, 1902, under Act XL of 1859, for default of payment of Government revenue. The respondents were the purchaser and his alienees. The property sold was the ijmali kalam of mahal Bhawaspur. The appellant had been declared the purchaser thereof on November 16, 1901, the sale being confirmed on February 8, 1902. This was under s. 14 of the said Act, and under ss. 14 and 27 he became full owner on November 16, 1901, while under s. 30 he became liable for all instalments of revenue which fell due after June, 1901. He paid Rs.73 on account of the instalment of revenue due in January, 1902. But the Collector applied a portion of this amount on account of the instalment due in the previous September and then advertised the property to realize Rs.16.12.2, the unpaid balance of the January instalment. It was sold on March 26, 1902, and the first respondent was put in possession as purchaser on October 13, 1902, an appeal against the sale having been dismissed by the Commissioner of Patna on August 28, 1902. The Subordinate Judge decided that the plaintiff was bound under the terms of s. 30 of Act XL of 1859 to pay the arrears of the September and the January kists, but that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not get his sale certificate, which should have been given to him under s. 28 immediately after the sale became final, until March 14, 1902, he was not bound to pay the arrears before the next kist day, that is March 28, 1902. The Collector had therefore no jurisdiction to sell before that date. The sale notification was therefore invalid on the face of it. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was, therefore, bound to pay all the arrears which had accrued within the next kist, that is within March 28, 1902, and in default the property could then be sold; also that the Collector was fully competent to deduct from the plaintiffs payment for January kist arrears then due for the September kist. He accordingly set aside the sale on that and other grounds mentioned in his judgment. He accordingly set aside the sale on that and other grounds mentioned in his judgment. The High Court decided that the plaintiff as purchaser was answerable for the kists of September 28, 1901, and January 12, 1902; that the Collector was not bound by ss. 59 and 60 of the Indian Contract Law, and that under the practice of the Revenue Courts he was fully competent to set off the amount paid against the September kist then due; that the estate was rightly sold for the arrears of the January kist; that no irregularity had been proved and it had not been shewn that the alleged inadequacy of price was due to any irregularity; and that the sale of March 26, 1902, was a valid sale which must prevail. De Gruyther, K.C., and Parikh, for the appellant, contended that the Collector was wrong in appropriating the payment made and accepted for the January kist to the satisfaction of the September kist. The Collectors power to sell was dependent on the existence of arrears; and it was shewn that there were no arrears in this case. Reference was made to Act XL of 1859, ss. 3, 10, 14, 25, 28, 29, and 55, and to Bengal Act VII. of 1868 see ss. 6 and 11. With regard to the appropriation Indian Contract Act, ss. 59 and 60, were referred to as authorizing it and were conclusive as to the consequent non-existence of arrears and invalidity of the sale. Reference was made to Sale Manual, p. 98; Act XI. of 1859, ss. 5, 6, 17, and 18 Balkishen Das v. Simpson (( 1898) L. R. 25 Ind. Ap. 151, 158.) ; Jogendra Mohan Sen v. Uma Nath Guha (( 1908) I. L. R. 35 Calc. 636.); Nandan Misser v. Harakh Narain (( 1910) 14 Calc. W. N. 607.); and Dheput Singh v. Mothooranath Jah (( 1864) S. W. R. 278.), which decided that an auction purchasers title accrued not from the date of purchase but from the date of certificate of purchase. The appellant was not bound to pay the revenue before he received the certificate. Dube, for the respondents, contended that the sale was justified under the provisions of Act XI. of 1859 and that the appellant was debarred from questioning it on any grounds other than those specified by him in his appeal to the Commissioner see ss. The appellant was not bound to pay the revenue before he received the certificate. Dube, for the respondents, contended that the sale was justified under the provisions of Act XI. of 1859 and that the appellant was debarred from questioning it on any grounds other than those specified by him in his appeal to the Commissioner see ss. 3 to 10 and 25 and 33 of Act XI. of 1859. Those grounds had failed. He referred to Gobind Lal Roy v. Ramjanam Misser. (( 1893) L. R. 20 Ind. Ap. 165, 174.) The appellant was liable to pay revenue from the date of purchase, for he bought subject to all incumbrances existing at the time see Shamkumari v. Rameswar Singh. (( 1904) L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 176,186.) Reference was also made to Act XI. of 1859, ss. 28, 53, and 54. A balance was due in respect of revenue and it was unnecessary that the sale should take place for failure to pay a specified kist. The appellant had failed to shew that the sale was in violation of the provisions of Act XI. of 1859, and consequently the High Court was right in upholding it. Counsel for the appellant were not heard in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court, Calcutta, overruling that of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra. The object of the suit, as brought by the plaintiff and now appellant, was to set aside a revenue sale, and to recover possession of the property sold. The defendants were the purchaser and others who derived title from him. In the first Court the decision was in favour of the plaintiff upon grounds which it is unnecessary now to examine. From that decision there was an appeal to the High Court, and that Court overruled the decision of the first Court. Various grounds were urged on the one side and on the other on the argument of that appeal, all of which were dealt with by the learned judges in their judgment, but of all those grounds there is only one which it appears to their Lordships necessary now to consider. The facts, so far as it is necessary to examine them at the present stage, can be shortly stated. The facts, so far as it is necessary to examine them at the present stage, can be shortly stated. The property in question is an ijmali kalam, forming part of the mahal Bhawaspur. That property was put up for sale by the Collector of Chapra on September 16, 1901, in respect of arrears of revenue, but as no bidder offered, the Collector stopped the sale, and declared that the whole estate would be put up to sale at a later date, acting under s. 14 of the Revenue Sale Law (Act XL of 1859). On September 17, 1901, the plaintiff (as permitted by s. 14 already referred to) paid the arrears due, and was declared the purchaser of the ijmali kalam. He did not, however, receive his sale certificate until February 8, 1902. In the meantime, between the sale and the sale certificate, kists of revenue became payable in respect of the property in September, 1901, and in January, 1902. On January 13, 1902, the purchaser, the plaintiff appellant, paid in to the Treasury a sum of Rs.73, appropriating that payment in the document which accompanied the payment to the Government to the January kist, and the payment was received and accepted on that account. Subsequently, however, the officers of the Treasury appropriated the sum paid, in the first place to the satisfaction of the September, 1901, kist, and then, as far as the money would go, towards the January, 1902, kist, the result being, according to this method of accounting, to leave a sum of Rs.16.12.2 still due in respect of the January kist. Subsequently, on March 26, 1902, the Collector put up the property for sale in respect of the amount so appearing due of the January kist. The only point which their Lordships think it necessary to dispose of on the present appeal is whether the amount of the January kist in respect of which the sale was made was really due at the time of the sale, and whether, therefore, there was any legal power to sell. Much was said in the argument about the bearing upon the present case of certain provisions of the Contract Act, relating to the appropriation of payments. Those enactments might perhaps have had a bearing upon the case, if the parties had not by their own actions placed the matter beyond doubt. Much was said in the argument about the bearing upon the present case of certain provisions of the Contract Act, relating to the appropriation of payments. Those enactments might perhaps have had a bearing upon the case, if the parties had not by their own actions placed the matter beyond doubt. The money in question in the present case was expressly paid to satisfy the January kist, and it was received and acknowledged on that account. It requires no statutory provision to shew that, when money has been so paid and received and appropriated, it is not in the power of one of the parties to the transaction, without the assent of the other, to vary the effect of the transaction by altering the appropriation in which both originally concurred. For these reasons their Lordships are of opinion that no arrears in respect of the January kist were due at the date of the sale, and that therefore the sale was without jurisdiction. Accordingly they will humbly advise His Majesty that the judgment and decree of the High Court should be set aside and that of the Subordinate Judge restored, with costs in both Courts. The respondents will pay the costs of this appeal.