JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This is an Appeal preferred against a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Midnapur passed in an appeal presented to him from an order of the Subordinate Judge. The learned District Judge varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge by declaring that the Defendants are not bound to recognise the Plaintiff as a tenant. The point lies in a very narrow compass. The Plaintiff is a partial transferee of certain properties comprised in a putni and the point that has been pressed before us is that being only such a partial transferee, the provisions of Reg. VIII of 1819 do not apply to him and that he is entitled to be recognised by the landlords under secs. 12 and 17 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In my opinion, there is no foundation for such a suggestion and it is contrary to what has been decided in the decisions of this Court on the Regulation. The 5th section of the Regulation (VIII of 1819) recognises the right of the putnidar to transfer his putni but subject to certain conditions, the conditions being, first of all, the payment of a fee to the zemindar and, secondly, the giving of security for half year's rent. Then, the 6th section of the Regulation provides that the zemindar may refuse to sanction the transfer till the fee and the security be tendered. Than comes a proviso in these terms :--"The rules of this and of the preceding section shall not be held to apply to transfers of any fractional portion of a putni taluk nor to any alienation other than of the entire interest." Those are the enacting words contained in the proviso. Then there is a semicolon and the proviso continues thus :-- "For no apportionment of the zemindar's reserved rent can be allowed to stand good unless made under his special sanction. The reasons seem to me to be perfectly good and clear but they do not cut down the enacting words of the proviso even if you come to a case which does not fall within the reasons. In my opinion, this case does fall within the reasons because if the Plaintiff can compel the landlords to recognise him then there will be an apportionment of the reserved rent. In my opinion, this case does fall within the reasons because if the Plaintiff can compel the landlords to recognise him then there will be an apportionment of the reserved rent. It seems to me that it is a form of transfer which, under the terms of the Regulation, the zemindar is not bound to recognise. If that be so, then, of course, the Bengal Tenancy Act has nothing to do with this case at all. Sec. 195 (e) provides that nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act shall affect any enactment relating to putni tenures in so far as it relates to those tenures. If, on the true construction of secs. 5 and 6 of Reg. VIII of 1819, a perpetual transfer of a putni taluk is not permitted as against the zemindar without his special sanction, then under sec. 195 (e) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the sections contained in that Act do not enable the tenant to claim recognition by reason of secs. 12 and 17 of the Act. In my opinion, the learned Judge came to a correct conclusion in varying the decree of the first Court in the way he did. The present appeal must therefore fail and be dismissed with costs. The observations of the learned District Judge contained in the penultimate clause in his judgment stem to me to be unnecessary and uncalled for, and, in my opinion, the learned Judge was not in a position to express any opinion as to what the failure of the Plaintiff to observe a course of conduct which he thought the Plaintiff ought to adopt would bring upon him if a similar case should occur in future. Those observations in the judgment should therefore be considered as unnecessary and uncalled for. N.R. Chatterjea, J. I agree.