JUDGMENT Chakravartti, J. - This suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by nine Plaintiffs for a declaration that the revenue sale of moabad jote No. 57, held on the 6th January, 1940, was ultra vires of the Collector, and even if not ultra vires, at least irregular and so liable to be set aside. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the same findings of fact and the same view of the law. In view of the limited character of the argument addressed to us, it is not necessary to refer to all the facts, nor to all the findings. The only ground urged in support of the appeal before us was that the property sold being a jote held in occupancy right, it was not saleable by the revenue sale procedure under sec. 11 of Act VII (B.C.) of 1868. 2. The jote is held directly under the Government and bears an annual rental of Rs. 51, payable in three instalments in the months of August, November and January respectively. It was created in the year 1930 for a period of thirty years, and the term will expire on the 31st March, 1960. No kabuliyat was executed. In the record-of-rights, that lands are described as held in the raiyati right of a settled raiyat. The latest dates of payment applicable to the rent payable can be found in the rules framed by the Board of Revenue which have been set out in part III of the Revenue Sale Manual. The area of the lands is 13.36 acres. 3. The Plaintiffs' contention is that an occupancy jote is not a tenure within the meaning of Act VII of 1868, and accordingly it is not saleable by the revenue sale procedure. The contention was rejected by the Courts below which held that an occupancy jote of the present character was a tenure, since it was an interest in the land held under the Government, since the rent payable on it was revenue, and since it was transferable by statute. 4. Of the three Appellants to this Court, only one is now surviving. On his behalf, it was contended by Mr. Sen that the view taken by the Courts below was erroneous. Interests in land, so it was contended, which Act VII of 1868 regarded as tenures, did not include occupancy raiyati holdings. 4. Of the three Appellants to this Court, only one is now surviving. On his behalf, it was contended by Mr. Sen that the view taken by the Courts below was erroneous. Interests in land, so it was contended, which Act VII of 1868 regarded as tenures, did not include occupancy raiyati holdings. Reference was made to the definition of "tenure" which requires that the tenancy should be transferable-either by the terms of the grant creating the same or by the custom of the country. This incident of transferability by custom, required by the definition, showed, so it was said, that occupancy holdings were intended to be excluded. It was contended further that sec. 14 of the Act brought out that intention even more clearly. If tenures, as defined in the Act, included occupancy holdings, an occupancy raiyat, upon a revenue sale of the superior tenure, would be protected from ejectment by the terms of sec. 12, clause thirdly. It would not in that case be necessary to provide specifically, as had been clone by sec. 14, that on the sale of a tenure under sec. 11 of the Act, the auction-purchaser would have no right to eject any raiyat, having the right of occupancy. 5. In our opinion, this contention is not sound and the reasons urged in its support would not bear examination. Interests in land which are " tenures " in the sense which the term bears in the ordinary land-laws of Bengal are all transferable. Occupancy holdings were not transferable, except by custom, before 1928. A reference to transferability by custom-is, therefore, not appropriate to tenures at all, but peculiarly appropriate to occupancy holdings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the definition of "tenure," as given in Act VII of 1868, furnishes no ground for holding that occupancy holdings were intended to be excluded. 6. As regards sec. 14, the argument based thereon assumes that clause thirdly of sec. 12 covers raiyati holdings held in occupancy right. The clause refers to Tenures created or recognised by the settlement proceedings of any current temporary settlement as tenures bearing a rent which is fixed for the period of such settlement. 7. This description, it was argued, would cover occupancy holdings as well. 12 covers raiyati holdings held in occupancy right. The clause refers to Tenures created or recognised by the settlement proceedings of any current temporary settlement as tenures bearing a rent which is fixed for the period of such settlement. 7. This description, it was argued, would cover occupancy holdings as well. The meaning of the clause is not altogether clear, but we need not undertake the task of construing it since, in our opinion, the word " tenure," as used in the four clauses of sec. 12, is not used in the special sense of the definition given in the Act, but in the ordinary sense. It is true that if the word " tenure," as used in the said clauses, could be taken to have been used in the sense given to it in the definition, it might be arguable that occupancy holdings would be covered by clause thirdly. The definition, it would be noticed, covers all interests in land, but it is perfectly clear from the terms of sec. 12 itself, that the word " tenure," as used in the four clauses under the section cannot bear the special meaning given to the word in the definition. The scheme of sec. 12 is that it is first stated that a tenure has been sold and someone has purchased it. The word " tenure," as used in the opening line of sec. 12, obviously means a tenure in the special sense of the Act, i.e., an interest in land, held under the Government; for otherwise, the tenure contemplated could not have been sold by the revenue sale procedure under sec. 11. In the four clauses which follow, a variety of interests are mentioned which are also described as tenures and which, though held under the superior tenure sold, would yet not be liable to annulment by the auction-purchaser. If the tenures contemplated by the four clauses which contain the exceptions were also tenures, as defined in the Act, i.e., interests in land held under the Government, an impossible position would manifestly result. A tenure held under the Government cannot obviously have another tenure under it, also held under the Government. It is thus clear that the word " tenure " in the four clauses of sec. A tenure held under the Government cannot obviously have another tenure under it, also held under the Government. It is thus clear that the word " tenure " in the four clauses of sec. 12 does not bear the extended sense given to it in the definition contained in the Act, but is used in the ordinary sense in which the term is understood in the land-laws of Bengal, although in the opening-paragraph of the section it is used in the special sense. If such be the position, then the tenures contemplated by clause thirdly of sec. 12 cannot obviously include occupancy holdings or any raiyati interests. The second ground urged by the Appellant must, accordingly, also fail. 8. It remains to deal with a decision reported in Abdul Karim Master v. Raj Chandra Chose (1942) 46 C.W.N. 498 which was cited by the Appellant. All that was held by Biswas, J., in that case was that interests, referred to as tenures in the various exceptions under sec. 12, were something distinguishable from the raiyati interests which were separately dealt with in sec. 14. The proposition contained in the head-note that A raiyati interest is not a ' tenure ' within the meaning of the Bengal Laud Revenue Sales Act, 1868, and is not protected under sec. 12 thereof 9. Is too broadly stated, as the effect of the judgment is only to lay down that such an interest is not a tenure within the meaning of the exceptions to sec. 12. Since we too are holding that the word "tenure," as used in the exception clauses under sec. 12, does not cover raiyati interests, we are not really taking a view different from that taken by Biswas, J. As regards sec. 14, however, to which also the learned Judge referred, it is enough to point out that that section deals with the protection of raiyati interests upon the sale of a superior tenure, and has no reference to a sale of a raiyati interest itself. 10. In our opinion, the view taken by the Courts below is correct. "Tenure," as defined in Act VII of 1868, includes all interests in land. The definition, however, must be read along with sec. 11 which indicates what kind of tenures can be sold under the section-and thus, what kind of tenures is contemplated by the Act. 10. In our opinion, the view taken by the Courts below is correct. "Tenure," as defined in Act VII of 1868, includes all interests in land. The definition, however, must be read along with sec. 11 which indicates what kind of tenures can be sold under the section-and thus, what kind of tenures is contemplated by the Act. Sec. 11 authorises the sale of a tenure only when any revenue payable to the Government in respect thereof is in arrear. Reading that section along with the definition of "tenure," it is clear that by the term the Act contemplates interests in land held under the Government which are not estates. It need hardly be pointed out that an occupancy holding held under the Government, as the jote in the present case is, would satisfy these requirements. The only other incident of an interest in land which would make it a tenure within the meaning of the definition is that it should be transferable, either by the terms of the grant creating it or by the custom of the country. Speaking generally, an occupancy jote which has now been made transferable by law would seem to come under this description, although transferability by law, as distinguished from custom or the terms of the grant, is not specifically mentioned. As regards the present case, the jote has been recorded in the record-of-rights as the jote of a settled raiyat, and it would thus satisfy the remaining requirement of the definition as well. We are accordingly of opinion that the Courts below were right in holding that jote in the present case, being an interest in land held under the Government on payment of rent to them and being transferable, was a tenure within the meaning of Act VII of 1868 and was, therefore, saleable under sec. 11 by the revenue sale procedure. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in Mohammad Eslam v_ Animesh Chandra Sen Poddar (1938) 43 C.W.N. 46 where, however, no reasons were given and the case is a precedent only in the sense of a previous instance where the same view was taken. 11. Some question was raised before us as to whether the entry in the record-of-rights, in so far as it described the jote as held in occupancy right, was correct, seeing that the settlement was for a term only. 11. Some question was raised before us as to whether the entry in the record-of-rights, in so far as it described the jote as held in occupancy right, was correct, seeing that the settlement was for a term only. The parties, however, ultimately elected, for the purposes of this case, to proceed on the basis which they had accepted in the Courts below, vie., that the jote was, in fact, an occupancy holding. It is, therefore, not necessary to express any opinion on the general question as to whether a noabad jote, settled for a limited period, can be held in occupancy right. 12. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent to the effect that since two of the Appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal, and their representatives had not been brought on the record, the appeal had abated, not only in respect of their interest, but as a whole. Inasmuch as the appeal fails on the merits, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to that objection. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Blank, J. I agree.