Judgement Consolidated Appeals from two decrees of the High Court (March 6 and 25, 1908) reversing two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs (July 25, 1905). The question decided was whether the sales of two plots of land of which the appellant was the tenure holder within the Government Khas Mahal estate, Panchannagram, for the recovery of the Government revenue under Bengal Act VII. of 1868 should be set aside and annulled. The appellant purchased the tenures on March 27, 1902, and failed to pay the Government revenue on June 28, 1902, the due date under the kabuliyats relating thereto, which had been executed by his vendor on February 18, 1874. Proceedings were taken on February 9, 1903, under Act XL of 1859, and on March 16 then next they were put up for sale for arrears and purchased by the respondent, who obtained certificates of sale under s. 28 of the said Act; but the appellant refused to give possession. On February 10, 1904, the appellant sued to set aside the sales, and on April 8 in the same year the respondent sued for possession. On July 25, 1905, the Subordinate Judge decreed the appellants suit and dismissed the respondents. He held that the sales were invalid in law, inasmuch as at the date thereof the latest date for the payment of the arrears of revenue due in respect of the said tenures had not arrived. The High Court in appeal held that the sales were valid, and that the jumma was payable on April 1 in each year, the tenures being liable to be sold on default of payment on the following June 28. It said that the settlement was made on February 18, 1874, and held that therefore in the case of an ordinary contract of lease the annual jumma would be payable on February 18 in each successive year, but under rule 7 of Part III., c. 16, of the Survey and Settlement Manual a settlement of revenue should ordinarily take effect from the beginning of the financial year next after that in which the proceedings of the Settlement Officer have been completed. If that rule be applied the settlement dates from April 1, 1874, and the jumma would ordinarily be payable on April 1 each year. If that rule be applied the settlement dates from April 1, 1874, and the jumma would ordinarily be payable on April 1 each year. And if it were ordinarily payable on April 1 each year, then the latest day of payment under the Boards proclamation of 1871 is June 28. The High Court considered that the undertaking in the kabuliyat did not have the effect of extending the time for the payment of the revenue, but was nothing more than a promise by the tenant that he would pay the revenue ordinarily payable on the first day of the financial year by the latest day of payment as fixed by the Boards proclamation. It also held that s. 2 of the Act of 1859 was clearly applicable to monthly instalments and in revenue-paying estates and did not apply to a yearly jumma of tenures such as the one now under consideration. The revenue, therefore, being unpaid after June 28, 1902, the Collector was empowered under s. 11 of Act VII. of 1868 to sell up the holding. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Ross, for the appellant, contended that the High Court was wrong in holding that there had been any default in payment of arrears by the appellant on March 16, 1903. It had misconstrued the kabuliyats of the appellants vendor under which the tenures were held. The effect of the kabuliyats and the Act was that the revenue was payable on June 28, 1902, and was in arrear on July 1, and that the tenures were saleable on the following June 28 if the arrears had not been paid on or before that date. As regards the notification of the Board of Revenue dated October 6, 1871, the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that it was not strictly in accordance with law. Under s. 3 the Board could fix the dates for payment of arrears in default of which payment the estate in arrear should be sold. It could not fix the date of payment of revenue in default of which the tenures would be liable to sale. The Collector therefore had no jurisdiction to sell in this case under the provisions of Act XI. of 1859. Rule 7, Part III., c. 16, of the Survey and Settlement Manual did not apply to the question in issue in this case. They referred to Act XL of 1859, ss. The Collector therefore had no jurisdiction to sell in this case under the provisions of Act XI. of 1859. Rule 7, Part III., c. 16, of the Survey and Settlement Manual did not apply to the question in issue in this case. They referred to Act XL of 1859, ss. 2 and 3; Bengal Act VII. of 1868, s. 11; Harkhoo Singh v. Bunsidhur Singh (( 1898) I. L. R. 25 Calc. 876.); Balkishen Das v. Simpson. (L. R. 25 Ind. Ap. 151, 158.) De Gruyther, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the respondent, contended that upon the true construction of Act XL of 1859 and Bengal Act VII. of 1868 the sales were valid and could not be annulled. On March 16, 1903, there were arrears of revenue and default had been made in payment, which entitled the Collector to sell under s. 11 of the Act of 1868. The procedure under the two Acts was different, and there was a difference between them as to what constituted arrears see definition in Act VII. of 1868, s. 1, of " revenue," " proprietor," and " tenure." Reference was made to Act X. of 1859, ss. 6, 19, and 20, and Bengal Tenancy Act, ss. 53, 54, 101, as to the day on which revenue was payable ; Harkhoo Singh v. Bunsidhur Singh (1) ; Mahomed Jan v. Ganga Bishun Singh. (( 1911) L. R. 38 Ind. Ap. 80.) Ross replied, referring to Act VII. of 1868, ss. 3 and 30, and Act XL of 1859, ss. 2 and 3, and contending that the latter sections are to be read together with s. 11 of Act VII. of 1868, and that consequently the distinction between the procedure under the two Acts could not be maintained. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. These are consolidated appeals from judgments and decrees of the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside two decrees of the Subordinate Judge in the Second Court of Twenty-four Pergunnahs in Bengal. The question for determination by the Board is whether a certain sale of holdings for arrears of revenue, made to the respondent on March 16, 1903, should be set aside. On March 27, 1902, the appellant purchased these holdings for Rs.16,000 from a son of Bhagaban Chandra Banerji. The question for determination by the Board is whether a certain sale of holdings for arrears of revenue, made to the respondent on March 16, 1903, should be set aside. On March 27, 1902, the appellant purchased these holdings for Rs.16,000 from a son of Bhagaban Chandra Banerji. By the kabuliyat executed in the year 1874 by Bhagaban, who was thus the appellants predecessor in title, it was stipulated as follows " I shall pay the said jumma in the collectorate within the 28th day of June every year." The holdings were Government tenures in Dihi Panchannagram in the district of Twenty-four Pergunnahs, and it is not disputed that such tenures came under the Act XI. of 1859 by virtue of the provisions of Act VII. of 1868. By s. 2 of the former Act an arrear of revenue was described thus " If the whole or a portion of a kist or instalment of any month of the era, according to which the settlement and kistbundi of any mahal have been regulated, be unpaid on the first of the following month of such era, the sum so remaining unpaid shall be considered as an arrear of revenue." It seems accordingly hardly to admit of dispute that, if this section applied, the rent payable under the kabuliyat on June 28, 1902, was not in arrear till July 1 thereafter. Statute having thus made clear what was to be considered an arrear of revenue, and at what date a past due payment was to be " considered as an arrear of revenue," namely, on the first of the month following that in which the payment fell due, the further question is this, namely, Was this sale conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute for the sales of property in respect of unpaid arrears of revenue? While, as stated, it was admitted that these tenures were brought under the Act of 1859 by the statute of 1868, it was nevertheless contended that there was some distinction to be made with reference to procedure and with reference to what con stituted " arrears." The contention is important and was ably presented, but, in their Lordships opinion, it is without foundation. The Act of 1868 above referred to extends the word " revenue " so as to include " every sum annually paid to Government by the proprietor of any estate or tenure in respect thereof." As to the attempt to differentiate procedure under the two statutes, the answer to that seems sufficiently contained in s. 30 of the later Act, which provides that it shall be read with, and taken as part of, the former. The date when a past due payment was to be considered arrears having accordingly been settled by s. 2 of the Act of 1859, as quoted, their Lordships cannot agree with the judgment of the High Court, which introduces a reference to "the settlement" having been made on February 18, Therefore, say the learned judges, " In the case of an ordinary contract of lease, the annual jumma would be payable on February 18 in each successive year; but under rule 7 of Part III., c. 16, of the Survey and Settlement Manual, a settlement of revenue should ordinarily take effect from the beginning of the financial year next after that in which the proceedings of the Settlement Officer have been completed. If that rule be applied, the settlement dates from April 1, 1874, and the jumma would ordinarily be payable on April 1 each year." The statements and considerations here given do not appear to their Lordships to bear upon the present case. Whatever might be the ordinary date of payment, or secondly, whatever might be the date when " the settlement" is made, or thirdly, whatever be the provisions of the Survey and Settlement Manual, it does not appear to their Lordships legitimate, by reason of any one or all of these things, to vary the actual date of payment in the kabuliyat in the present case, which is June 28, or the actual date when a past due payment should be considered as an arrear, which is by the statute of 1859 July 1, 1902. No variation of the contract of parties and the statutory provisions applicable thereto is possible by reason of general considerations or administrative rules which have not the sanction of Indian statute. In the words of Lord Watson, in Balkishen Das v. Simpson (L. R. 25 Ind. Ap. No variation of the contract of parties and the statutory provisions applicable thereto is possible by reason of general considerations or administrative rules which have not the sanction of Indian statute. In the words of Lord Watson, in Balkishen Das v. Simpson (L. R. 25 Ind. Ap. 158), referring to the Act of 1859, " The Act does not sanction, and by plain implication forbids, the sale of any estate which is not at the time in arrear of Government revenue. The whole clauses of the Act of 1859, in so far as these relate to sales or to their challenge at the instance of the proprietor, as well as the provisions of s. 2 of Bengal Act VII. of 1868, are framed upon the express footing that they are to be applicable to the sale of estates which are in arrear of duty." The date when by statute accordingly this revenue was considered in arrear was July 1, 1902. At what date was default made in paying that arrear of revenue, so as to entitle a sale of the estate to be made ? This, which appears to their Lordships to be the real question in the case, is clearly answered by the Act of 1859 itself and by the notification which followed thereon. At what date was default made in paying that arrear of revenue, so as to entitle a sale of the estate to be made ? This, which appears to their Lordships to be the real question in the case, is clearly answered by the Act of 1859 itself and by the notification which followed thereon. By s. 3 of the Act, " The Board of Revenue at Calcutta shall determine upon what dates all arrears of revenue, and all demands which by the Regulations and Acts in force are directed to be realised in the same manner as arrears of revenue, shall be paid up in each district under their jurisdiction, in default of which payment the estates in arrears in those districts, except as hereinafter provided, shall be sold at public auction to the highest bidder." In compliance with this section, the Board of Revenue on October 6, 1871, made and duly published a notification that it " has determined and fixed the 28th June of each respective year as the latest date of payment of the rents of all description of tenures in Khas Mahal Panchannagram, in default of which payment on or previous to that date, tenures in arrears in that mahal will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder." Bearing in mind that the whole provisions with regard to sales are, in the language of Lord Watson, " framed upon the express footing that they are to be applicable to the sale of estates which are in arrear of duty," and that this tenure could not be con sidered in arrear until July 1, 1902, it appears fairly clear that June 28, 1903, is the first date under the proclamation and the statute when there has arisen such a default as would enable that" " tenure in arrears " to be sold. It so happens that the payment in the present case is not a monthly but an annual payment, and it further happens that the payment fell to be made on June 28, 1902. The statute having by plain implication forbidden the estate to be considered in arrear until July 1, it appears to follow that the date fixed as that on which tenures in arrear will be sold must be the succeeding June 28, namely, in the year 1903. The statute having by plain implication forbidden the estate to be considered in arrear until July 1, it appears to follow that the date fixed as that on which tenures in arrear will be sold must be the succeeding June 28, namely, in the year 1903. This estate, however, was sold in the previous month of March, and their Lordships agree with the view of the Subordinate Judge in thinking that the sale is accordingly invalid. In the language of the learned judge, "The Board of Revenue are required, under s. 3 of the Act, to determine on what date arrears of revenue shall be paid up, in default of which payment the estates in arrear shall be sold at public auction." Their Lordships agree with the view that the notification must, having regard to this section of the statute which authorized it, be applied to the present estate as fixing June 28, 1903, as the date on which, if the arrears are not paid up, the estate can be sold. If, in cases such as the present, this holds up the power of sale until nearly a years revenue stands in arrear, that matter, including the question whether more than one date for payment of arrears should be set up as periods of default, is one for the consideration of the Legislature and the Board of Revenue. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals should be allowed, the judgments and decrees of the High Court reversed, and those of the Subordinate Judge restored, the costs of the suit and of the appeal being borne by the respondent.