JUDGMENT 1. This is an Appeal by the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a sale for arrears of revenue of her share in an estate held on the 14th September 1906 was inoperative, and for recovery of possession thereof. The sale took place for realization of a sum of Rs. 6-14 annas 6 pies made up as follows: namely, 12 annas 6 pies as arrears due at the end of the year 1903-1004, Rs. 3-1 anna as an arrear due in respect of the year 1904-05 and a second sum of Rs. 3-1 anna as an arrear due in respect of the year 1905-06. 2. The case for the Plaintiff is that the sale was inoperative because it was held in contravention of the provisions of sec. 13 of Act XI of 1859. This contention has been negatived by all the Courts, and the question in controversy is as to the true construction of this provision of the law. Sec. 13 provides that "whenever the Collector shall have ordered a separate account or accounts to be kept for one or more shares, if the estate shall become liable to sale for arrears of revenue, the Collector or other officer as aforesaid in the first place shall put up to sale only that share or those shares of the estate from which, according to the separate accounts, an arrear of revenue may be due." 3. In the case before us, the share of the Plaintiff was separated in 1887, and the order come into effect from the beginning of the year 1888-1889. 4. Now, under sec. 13 to which reference has been made, the first point to be determined is whether the estate is liable to sale for arrears of revenue. 5. On behalf of the Respondents it has been contended that the term "estate" means, share of an estate. But notwithstanding the definition of the term estate as given in sec. 1 of Bengal Act VII of 1868, a is plain that the term estate as used in the clause "if the estate shall become liable to sale for arrears of revenue" means the entire estate out of which the separate share has been carved. The policy of the Legislature is clear beyond dispute. The first point for determination is, is the estate as a whole liable to sale for arrears of revenue. The policy of the Legislature is clear beyond dispute. The first point for determination is, is the estate as a whole liable to sale for arrears of revenue. If it is not, no further question arises. But if the estate as a whole has become liable to sale for arrears of revenue, the question arises which portion or portions thereof should be brought to sale. Under sec. 13, the Collector can put up to sale only that share or those shares of the estate which has thus become liable to sale for arrears of revenue, from which, according to the separate accounts, an arrear of revenue may be due. 6. In the case before us, it has been contended by the Plaintiff throughout the litigation that the entire estate which comprised her share had not become liable to sale for arrears of revenue on the 14th of September 1906. This is a point which has not been investigated by the Courts below. Consequently, it is open to us, under sec. 103, C. P. C., upon the materials on the record to determine whether the estate has become liable to sale for arrears of revenue. 7. Now, the Plaintiff has established by the production of the receipts for payments made by her from time to time into the Collectorate that from 1888 to 1904, during a period of seventeen years, she had paid 6 pies a year in excess of the amount due. The amount paid by her was Rs. 316 pies, whereas the amount payable by her in respect of her share was Rs. 3-1 anna; she had thus over-paid 8 annas 6 pies. At the end of the year 1903-04 consequently the accounts ought to have shown 8 annas 6 pies to her credit, but they erroneously show against her 12 annas 6 pies, and it is not obligatory upon her to show how the error originated. As regards the years 1904-05 and 1905-06 it has not been established that she had paid the amounts due. Consequently, at the end of the year 1905 06 the amount due from her would be Rs. 6-14-6 pies reduced by 12 annas 6 pies, namely, Rs. 62 annas. But as already explained she had made the excess payment of 8 annas 6 pies. She further proves that in the residuary estate there had been over-payments and a sum of Rs. 6-14-6 pies reduced by 12 annas 6 pies, namely, Rs. 62 annas. But as already explained she had made the excess payment of 8 annas 6 pies. She further proves that in the residuary estate there had been over-payments and a sum of Rs. 5-13 2 pies stood to the credit of that estate Consequently a sum of Rs. 6-5 annas 8 pies ought to have stood to the credit of the entire estate, and as there was a non-payment (sic) Rs. 6-2 annas, there would be a sum of (sic) as 8 pies in excess to the credit of (sic) estate. Consequently at the end of the year 1905 06 the estate had not become liable to sale for arrears of revenue. If the estate, as we have found, was not liable to sale for arrears of revenue, the Collector had no jurisdiction to put up any share thereof to sale. Consequently, the sale must be declared as inoperative as explained by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Balkishen Das v. Simpson I. L. R. 25 Cal. 833, 837 (1898). 8. The result, therefore, is that this Appeal must be allowed, the decrees of the Courts below discharged and the suit decreed. It will be declared that the sale held on the 14th September 1906 was inoperative, and the Plaintiff will be placed in possession of the property sold. This order will carry costs throughout.