ARTHUR HENRY FORBES v. BAHADUR SINGH — 1914 DIGILAW 9 (SC)

Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 8, 1908) reversing a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah (September 14, 1906). The facts giving rise to the litigation were shortly as follows. Rai Dhanpat Singh, the father of the first respondent, was the zamindar of Lot Saifganj, a patni taluq of which Chattrapat Singh (a defendant and the fifth respondent) had been patnidar. Chattrapat Singh had created various darpatni tenures of which the appellant held two. On June 27, 1893, Rai Dhanpat Singh sold and conveyed his right in the zamindari to Bhagwanbati Chowdhrain. On September 21, 1893, he instituted a suit against Chattrapat Singh to recover arrears of rent due to him for a period prior to the sale, and on July 10, 1896, he obtained a decree for the amount claimed. On July 19, 1896, Rai Dhanpat Singh executed a deed of trust in favour of his son, the first respondent, appointing the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 the trustees, and, among other properties, assigned to them the above-mentioned decree. In 1897 the trustees applied for execution of the decree against Chattrapat Singh by attachment and sale of his patni tenure. Various objections were raised to the proceedings by the judgment debtor, but on March 20, 1899, the High Court decided in favour of the trustees as to their right to execution. In the meantime Chattrapat Singh having made default in the payment of the rent of his patni to Bhagwanbati Chowdhrain, the purchaser of the zamindari, she took proceedings under Regulation VIII. of 1819 before the Collector of Purneah, and the patni was advertised for sale thereunder. The appellant as darpatnidar applied to the Collector on May 14, 1900, for leave to deposit the amount of the arrears and did deposit the amount under s. 13 of the Regulation. On May 23, 1900, the Collector made an order directing the appellant to be put in possession of the patni taluq under s. 13, sub-s. 4, of the Regulation, and on May 80 the appellant was put into possession and had since remained in possession. At the date of the suit there was due to the appellant a large sum in respect of this deposit. Subsequently to the appellant being put into possession of the patni taluq the trustees, respondents Nos. At the date of the suit there was due to the appellant a large sum in respect of this deposit. Subsequently to the appellant being put into possession of the patni taluq the trustees, respondents Nos. 2 to 4, applied for execution of the decree which they had obtained on July 10, 1896; they advertised the patni taluq for sale under s. 163 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (Act VIII. of 1885), and afterwards obtained an order for a sale proclamation under s. 165 of that Act. On July 9, 1906, the appellant instituted the present suit praying (1.) for a declaration that the decree of July 10, 1896, was not a rent decree within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the patni tenure could not be sold in execution thereof, (2.) for a declaration that he had a first charge on the tenure in priority to all others which might have existed previously to May 14, 1900, and that the tenure could not be sold in execution free from that charge, and (3.) for an injunction. The Subordinate Judge, by his judgment delivered on September 14, 1906, held that the appellant had a subsisting charge on the patni by virtue of his deposit under s. 13 of Regulation VIII. of 1819, and that the decree obtained by the trustee respondents on July 10, 1896, was not a rent decree within the meaning of s. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. He accordingly made a decree as prayed. Upon appeal to the High Court, that Court (Rampini and Sharfuddin JJ.), by its judgment delivered on April 8, 1908, set aside this decree and dismissed the appellants suit. The learned judges were of opinion that the decree of July 10, 1896, con stituted a first charge upon the patni taluq under s. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, and that this was so although the zamindar had parted with his interest in the zamindari after the rent had become due, whether after or before he instituted his suit for rent being, in their view, immaterial. They held that the appellant, as darpatnidar in possession, had a lien upon the patni tenure under Regulation VIII. They held that the appellant, as darpatnidar in possession, had a lien upon the patni tenure under Regulation VIII. of 1819, but that the respondents had a first charge entitling them to priority over the appellants lien and giving them a right to sell the tenure under s. 165 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, free of all incumbrances. It was also held that the trustees were not assignees of the decree of July 10, 1896, within the meaning of s. 148 (h) of that Act, so as to be precluded by that sub-section from executing it. The more material provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, and of Regulation VIII. of 1819 are set out in the judgment of their Lordships. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dunne, for the appellant. The decree of July 10, 1896, was not a rent decree within the meaning of s. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885; the decree being made after the zamindar had parted with the zamindari was merely a money decree. Sect. 65 must be read with s. 66, from which it appears that the remedies given by the former section are only available to a person who is in the position of landlord and who, apart from s. 65, would have a right to eject the tenant. The right of sale given by s. 65 is in substitution for the right to eject which previously existed under the Bengal Kent Act, 1859 (X. of 1859). This view is supported by Hem Chandra Bhunjo v. Mon Mohini Dassi(( 1894) 3 Calc. W. N. 604.), which was followed in Srimant Roy v. Mahadeo Mahata. (( 1904) I. L. R. 31 Calc. 550, at p. 554,) The later decision in Khetra Pal Singh v. Kritarthamoyi Dassi (( 1906) I. L. R. 33 Calc. 566.) is distinguishable, since in that case the decree was obtained before the relationship of landlord and tenant terminated ; the judgments in that case really support the view that where the decree is obtained after the termination of that relationship it is merely a money decree. Sect. 148 (h) provides that execution of a decree for arrears of rent shall not be granted to an assignee of the decree unless the landlords interest in the land has become and is vested in him. Sect. 148 (h) provides that execution of a decree for arrears of rent shall not be granted to an assignee of the decree unless the landlords interest in the land has become and is vested in him. The High Court, following their previous decision given in earlier proceedings with regard to the present transactions, Chattrapat Singh v. Gopi Chand Bothra(( 1899) I. L. R. 26 Calc. 750.), held that the trustees were not assignees within the meaning of that section. That decision was wrong. The meaning of "assignee M cannot be so limited, and in any case they cannot execute the decree after their assignors interest in the land has ended. The object of the sub-section is that the assignee shall also be landlord and it indicates that the right under s. 65 can only be exercised by a landlord. Even if the decree of July 10, 1896, was a rent decree under s. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that statute does not give the right to annul the statutory mortgage which the darpatnidar obtained under s. 13 of Regulation VIII. of 1819. The power to annul incumbrances given by s. 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is by s. 161 (a) confined to incumbrances created by the tenant. The lien given by Regulation VIII. of 1819 is not one so created. Further, it is provided by s. 195 (e) of the Bengal Tenancy Act that that Act is not to affect any enactment relating to patni tenures. The respondents, therefore, obtained no charge or right of sale under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, and even if they did it gave them no right to avoid the appellants lien upon the tenure. [Faez Rahaman v. Ramsukh Bajpai (( 1893) I. L. R. 21 Calc. 169.) and Soshi Bhusun Guha v. Gogan Chunder Shaha (( 1894) I. L. R. 22 Calc. 364, at p. 374.) were referred to.] Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Ross, K.C., for the respondents. The decree of July 10, 1896, was a first charge upon the patni tenure from its date by virtue of s. 65. Any person who is entitled to sue for rent, whether as landlord, ex-landlord, or assignee, is entitled to the rights given by that section. Sect. The decree of July 10, 1896, was a first charge upon the patni tenure from its date by virtue of s. 65. Any person who is entitled to sue for rent, whether as landlord, ex-landlord, or assignee, is entitled to the rights given by that section. Sect. 65 refers to the " rent accrued," but does not speak of the "landlord." The language of s. 66 is different in that it expressly gives the right to eject to the landlord. Both ss. 67 and 68 clearly apply to suits for arrears of rent by an ex-landlord. The lien was obtained by the appellant under Regulation VIII. n 1900 only, and was subject to the first charge in favour of the respondents, who were entitled to sell the tenure free from the lien. Sect. 148 (h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, does not apply to an assignment to trustees who take no beneficial interest in the rent Chattrapat Singh v. Gopi Chand Bothra. (I. L. R, 26 Calc. 750.) The language of s. 195 (e) and (f) of Regulation VIII. of 1819 is not suitable if it was intended, in the case of patni tenures, to take away the rights given by s. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. [Sects. 90, 101, 102, 121, 158, 167, and 169, sub-s. 1, of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, were referred to.] De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by MR. AMEER ALI This appeal, which is from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated April 8, 1908, raises certain questions of particular importance under the Kent Law of Bengal, for the proper apprehension of which it is necessary to set out in some detail the facts of the case. The zamindari of Lot Saifganj, situated in the district of Purneah, was owned at one time by a zamindar of the name of Roy Dhanpat Singh, since deceased. The estate, however, was settled in patni, and has been held for some years past by the defendant Chattrapat Singh as the patni taluqdar; Chattrapat, on his side, settled the patni tenure, in several parcels with subordinate tenure-holders called darpatnidars. Two of these darpatnis are held by the plaintiff-appellant. These tenures are special to Bengal, the Sonthal Pergunas, and certain parts of Chota-Nagpur, and their incidents are governed by Regulation VIII. Two of these darpatnis are held by the plaintiff-appellant. These tenures are special to Bengal, the Sonthal Pergunas, and certain parts of Chota-Nagpur, and their incidents are governed by Regulation VIII. of 1819, commonly called the Patni Regulation. To some of these incidents reference will be made in the course of this judgment. It may be conveniently premised here that a patni taluq is a permanent heritable and transferable tenure, which the zamindar may create over the whole or part of his estate, whilst the patni taluqdar has a similar right to let the entire property held by him in patni or in parcels to subordinate taluqdars called darpatnidars. And this process of sub-infeudation may, so far as the law is concerned, be carried down to several lower degrees. In the case of these tenures the zamindar has a right to apply to the Collector to put up the patni taluq to sale for arrears of rent, and the sale has the effect of cancelling all under-tenures; but the subordinate tenure-holders have the right to deposit in the Collectors Court the arrears of rent, and to be put in possession of the defaulting superior tenure for the satisfaction of the deposit made by them. The same right which the zamindar possesses for the realization of his rent, with the correlative right on the part of the subordinate tenure-holders of saving the superior tenure from sale, is given to them in succession. On June 27, 1893, Dhanpat Singh transferred the zamindari, subject of course to Chattrapats patni, to a Hindu lady, Bhagwanbati Chowdhrain, who has unquestionably been in possession of the estate since her purchase. It appears that certain arrears of rent in respect of the patni had become due before the sale to Bhagwanbati Chowdhrain. For these arrears Dhanpat Singh brought a suit in the Civil Court on September 21, 1893. The final decree in this action was passed by the High Court on July 10, 1896. Nine days after Dhanpat Singh executed a deed of trust by which he assigned to the defendants 2 to 4 in trust for the defendant Maharaj among other properties the decree for arrears of rent. Dhanpat Singh died shortly after, leaving Maharaj his only son and heir. Nine days after Dhanpat Singh executed a deed of trust by which he assigned to the defendants 2 to 4 in trust for the defendant Maharaj among other properties the decree for arrears of rent. Dhanpat Singh died shortly after, leaving Maharaj his only son and heir. In 1897 the trustees proceeded to execute the decree against Chattrapat, but were met with various objections on his part which were finally overruled by the High Court in 1899. In the meantime Chattrapat had fallen into arrears in respect of the patni rent payable to the Chowdhrain; and that lady had instituted in the Court of the Collector of Purneah the special proceedings under Regulation VIII. of 1819 for the realization of her dues. The defaulting tenure was accordingly advertised for sale on May 14, 1901. The plaintiff-appellant thereupon deposited the amount of the arrears in the Collectors Court and was put by him in possession of the patni taluq. Since then he has been and still is in possession of the superior tenure, paying rent to the zamindar and realizing the rents due to the patni taluqdar from the subordinate holders. The trustee defendants, having obtained the decision of the High Court that they were entitled to execute Dhanpat Singhs decree, applied for the sale of the patni taluq under s. 163 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is to be observed that a sale held, under this section does not give power to the decree-holder to annul "notified and registered incumbrances." The plaintiff there upon preferred a claim under s. 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, which, however, after some protracted proceedings, was withdrawn. -Apparently a sale under s. 163 was held, but it did not fetch a sum sufficient to liquidate the arrears and costs, and the defendants then applied for a sale under s. 165, under which the decree-holder has the power to annul all incumbrances including under-tenures. On this application August 6, 1906, was fixed for the sale of the patni. The present suit was then brought by the plaintiff on July 9, 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the sale. It should be noted here that there exist many permanent, heritable, and transferable tenures in Bengal which do not come within the purview of Regulation VIII. The present suit was then brought by the plaintiff on July 9, 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the sale. It should be noted here that there exist many permanent, heritable, and transferable tenures in Bengal which do not come within the purview of Regulation VIII. of 1819, and which have no relation to patni taluqs. The incidents of these tenures are governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act passed in 1885, to regulate, subject to certain exceptions to which attention will be drawn, the relations in general between landlord and tenant. The Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, whilst it protected the permanent tenure-holder and other tenants having similar permanent interests against ejectment for arrears of rent, gave to the landlords certain rights which they either did not possess before or possessed only in a qualified form. One was the right to bring to sale the tenure or holding in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. Sect. 65, which declares this liability of the defaulting tenure, also declares that "the rent shall be a first charge thereon." It is round these words that the controversy between the parties is mainly centred. Their Lordships say mainly, because there is another question of vital importance in this case which relates to the applicability of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act to patni tenures. The defendants in their endeavours to bring Chattrapats patni taluq under the provisions of s. 165 of the Tenancy Act contend that, as the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Dhanpat Singh and Chattrapat when the rents became due, the decree obtained by him became by virtue of s. 65 a first charge on the tenure. The plaintiffs contention, on the other hand, is that, as Dhanpat Singh had parted with his interest in the zamindari before the institution of his suit for arrears, the decree of which execution was sought was not a rent decree within the meaning of s. 65. The Subordinate Judge has upheld the plaintiffs contention, and granted him an injunction restraining Maharaj Bahadur and the trustee defendants, who are called in the suit "first party defendants," from executing their decree of July 10, 1896, against the patni under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Subordinate Judge has upheld the plaintiffs contention, and granted him an injunction restraining Maharaj Bahadur and the trustee defendants, who are called in the suit "first party defendants," from executing their decree of July 10, 1896, against the patni under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. His decision has been reversed by the High Court on appeal and the plaintiffs suit been dismissed with costs. The learned judges considered that, the decree being for rent, the mere fact that the zamindar had sold the estate after it became due does not affect his right to "a first charge." At least that is what their Lordships understand to be the meaning of the learned judges in the following passage of their judgment "The decree of the 10th July, 1896, is a decree for rent. Rai Dhanpat Singh was the landlord at the time when the rent he sued for accrued due. His claim for rent, when found due, became a first charge on the patni. There is nothing in the law which disentitles him to a first charge, because after the accrual of the rents he sued for, he parted with his interest in the zamindari." This conception is further developed at a later stage of their judgment, where they say as follows " Now, no doubt, the decision of this Full Bench does not deal with a case such as the present in which the landlord had parted with his interest before he instituted his suit for rent, but it would seem to follow that if he can execute a decree for arrears of rent as a rent decree after he has parted with his interest as landlord, he can also do so when he obtained his decree for rent, even after he had parted with his interest in the property. The character of the decree a suitor obtains depends on the nature of the claim and of his right to the relief sought for, and is not altered by any change in his position which may have taken place subsequent to the accrual of his right to sue." Their Lordships cannot help observing that the learned judges have fallen into an error in drawing an inference of law in support of their conclusion from a decision which was obviously based on facts different from those with which they had to deal. In the Full Bench case of Khetra Pal Singh v. Kritarthamoyi Dassi (I. L. R. 33 Calc, 566.) the landlord did not part with the property and put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant until after the decree in his suit for rent, whereas in the present case he trans ferred his interest to Bhagwanbati Chowdhrain before his suit for the arrears. The broad question, however, for determination in this appeal is whether the special right created in favour of the landlord under s. 65 can be claimed also by one who has parted with the property which gives this right and to which it is attached. There is no doubt that there is a divergence of opinion among the judges of the High Court of Calcutta with regard to the construction of s. 65. The section itself runs as follows " Where a tenant is a permanent tenure-holder a raiyat holding at fixed rates or an occupancy raiyat, he shall not be liable to ejectment for arrears of rent, but his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof, and the rent shall be a first charge thereon." It is not a happily-worded section, and the words "and the rent shall be a first charge thereon " seem, from their collocation, to have been inserted as an afterthought without sufficient consideration of their applicability to the rest of the provisions contained in the section. They give no indication as to when it becomes a "first charge." Does it become a first charge from the nature of the claim, as some of the learned judges seem to imagine, or does it become a first charge after it has been ascertained and made the subject of a decree? Again, the section does not sufficiently indicate at whose instance the tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for rent thereof, though from the reason of the thing it is obvious that it must be at the instance of the landlord. These questions cannot, therefore, be answered merely by a reference to the section itself; to understand its meaning, their Lordships apprehend, the general scope of the statute, as well as of the chapter in which it occurs, must be taken into consideration. These questions cannot, therefore, be answered merely by a reference to the section itself; to understand its meaning, their Lordships apprehend, the general scope of the statute, as well as of the chapter in which it occurs, must be taken into consideration. The Act, as stated in the preamble, was designed "to amend and consolidate certain enactments relating to the law of landlord and tenant." The words "tenant," "landlord," and "rent" are carefully defined. "Landlord " is declared to mean "a person immediately under whom a tenant holds, and includes the Government," whilst "rent” is declared to mean " whatever is lawfully payable or deliverable in money or kind by a tenant to his landlord on account of the use or occupation of the land held by the tenant." Chapter VIII. embodies the "general pro visions as to rent." After dealing with "rules and presumptions as to amount of rent," "the alteration of rent," "the payment of rent," "receipts and accounts," "deposit of rent" in Court when the landlord refuses to receive payment, it treats of "arrears of rent." The governing idea throughout the multifarious provisions contained in chapter VIII. to regulate the respective rights and obligations of landlords and tenants is the subsistence of the relationship that gives rise to those rights and obligations. Sect. 65 declares that a certain class of tenants shall not be liable to ejectment for "arrears of rent," but that their tenure or holding " shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof." Sect. 66 provides that in the case of other tenants, not coming within the purview of s. 65, the landlord "may institute a suit to eject" the defaulting tenant. The two sections taken together cover practically the remedies provided by law for the landlord to recover arrears of rent. One section is the exact corollary of the other. The right to proceed to sale in one case, in the other to eject, is dependent on the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant at the time when the remedy provided by law is sought to be enforced. A reference to s. 148, clause (h), clearly shews that the right to apply for the execution of a decree for arrears was attached to the status of the decree-holder qua landlord. A reference to s. 148, clause (h), clearly shews that the right to apply for the execution of a decree for arrears was attached to the status of the decree-holder qua landlord. It declares that "notwithstanding anything contained in s. 232 of the Civil Procedure Code an application for the execution of a decree for arrears obtained by a landlord shall not be made by an assignee of the decree unless the landlords interest has become and is vested in him." The prohibition contained in this section refers to decrees obtained by the landlord under s. 65. To acquire the right which the section gives, not only the person obtaining the decree must be the landlord at the time, but the person seeking to execute it by sale of the tenure must have the landlords interest " vested " in him. In other words, the right to bring the tenure or holding, as the case may be, to sale exists so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. It seems to their Lordships clear on an examination of the different sections bearing on the subject that the right to bring the tenure or holding to sale under s. 65 appertains exclusively to the landlord; and that a person to whom certain rents are due, and who obtains a decree therefor after he has parted with the property in which the tenancy is situate, has no such right. The contrary view, "their Lordships think, would give rise to a very anomalous situation. A zamindar to whom certain arrears are due, as in the present case, may sell his property without assigning the back-rents, as he is entitled to do; he may then sue for those back-rents; before any decree is made in this suit, the tenant falls into arrears to the new landlord who brings a similar suit. Both the ex-landlord and the present landlord obtain decrees for their respective arrears. In whose decree and on whose application is the tenure to be sold? The question admits of only one answer—that it is the existing landlord alone who can execute the decree; the ex-landlord is an outsider, and whilst he can execute his decree against the debtor as a money decree, he has no remedy against the tenure itself. In whose decree and on whose application is the tenure to be sold? The question admits of only one answer—that it is the existing landlord alone who can execute the decree; the ex-landlord is an outsider, and whilst he can execute his decree against the debtor as a money decree, he has no remedy against the tenure itself. The learned judges of the High Court seem to think that either from the nature of the debt being arrears of rent, or the decree being for arrears of rent, the tenure becomes ipso facto hypothecated so to speak for the debt; and that consequently the person to whom the debt is due, although he has ceased to be the landlord, and is to all intents and purposes, so far as other rights and obligations under the law are concerned, a total stranger to the property with which those rights and obligations are inseparably connected, has the special remedy given to the landlord to recover arrears attached to the tenure. This conception of the legal position seems to their Lordships untenable, for the charge created by s, 65 is clearly in favour of the landlord. There is another equally fatal objection to the application of the contesting defendants to bring to sale the patni tenure in execution of Dhanpat Singhs decree. The Patni Regulation is a self-contained statute. It lays down certain well-defined rules for the realization by the zamindar of arrears of rent from a tenure-holder; it makes the tenure primarily liable, and it gives to the zamindar the right of applying to the Collector for the periodical sale of defaulting taluqs. Sect. 8 provides for the manner in which the zamindar, that is “the proprietor under direct engagement to Government," shall be entitled to apply for the sale of these tenures. Sect 11 declares that "any taluq or saleable tenure that may be disposed of at a public sale, under the rule3 of this Regulation, for arrears of rent due on account of it, is sold free of all incumbrances that may have accrued upon it by act of the defaulting proprietor, his representatives, or assignees." It is unnecessary to refer to the rest of this section for the purposes of this judgment. Sect. Sect. 13 provides the method by which the holder of a taluq of the second degree may save his tenure from the ruin that must attend the sale of the superior tenure. Sub-s. 2 declares " Whenever the tenure of a taluqdar of the first degree may be advertised for sale in the manner required by the second and third clauses of section 8 of this Regulation, for arrears of rent due to the zamindar, the taluqdars of the second degree, or any number of them, shall be entitled to stay the final sale, by paying into Court the amount of balance that may be declared due by the person attending on the part of the zamindar on the day appointed for sale; in like manner they shall be entitled to lodge money antecedently, for the purpose of eventually answering any demand that may remain due on the day fixed for the sale, and, should the amount lodged be sufficient, the sale shall not proceed, but, after making good to the zamindar the amount of his demand, any excess shall be paid back to the person or persons who may have lodged it." Sub-s. 4, after referring to certain conditions which it is unnecessary to consider here, declares that " such deposit shall not be carried to credit in, or set against, future demands for rent, but shall be considered as a loan made to the proprietor of the tenure preserved from sale by such means, and the taluq so preserved shall be the security to the person or persons making the advance, who shall be considered to have a lien thereupon, in the same manner as if the loan had been made upon mortgage ; and he or they shall be entitled, on applying for the same, to obtain immediate possession of the tenure of the defaulter, in order to recover the amount so advanced from any profits belonging thereto." It will be seen, therefore, that the appellant in this case, by his admitted deposit of the arrears for which the superior tenure was advertised for sale at the instance of the Chowdhrain zamindar, acquired the special lien expressly created by the Regulation which may well be called a statutory salvage lien arising not from any implication of the law but under the express directions and declarations of the Act. Regulation VIII. Regulation VIII. of 1819 being thus, as already observed, a self-contained Act, embodying the rules relative to the rights of zamindars and patni taluqdars, the Legislature in enacting Act VIII. of 1885 excluded in express terms from the operation of the Tenancy Act the special legislation relating to patni tenures. Sect. 195 of Act VIII. of 1885 declares (omitting the immaterial portions) that "nothing in this Act shall affect....any enactment relating to patni tenures, so far as it relates to those tenures." The plaintiffs right to hold the patni taluq exempt from any proceeding under the Tenancy Act is founded on steps taken by him under the Patni Regulation. For these considerations their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment and decree of the High Court should be set aside, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored. The first party defendants, the contesting respondents, must pay the costs of this appeal and of the appeal to the High Court. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.