JUDGMENT Chakravartti, J. - The only question involved in this appeal, which is one of some difficulty, concerns the true interpretation of secs. 29 and 30 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act. The question is whether a person, who was a tenure-holder within the meaning of the Cess Act at the time of the last cess valuation and whose lands were valued as a tenure, but who has since become a cultivating raiyat with respect to the same lands, continuing to pay the same rent, is liable to pay education cess under sec. 30 (3) on the annual value of the lands, as determined at the cess valuation, or is only liable to pay cess under sec. 30 (4) as a cultivating raiyat upon the rent paid by him. The Courts below had no occasion to pronounce on this question, as it does not appear to have been raised before them. The material facts are the following: The Plaintiffs, who are the Appellants before us, sued the Respondents for the recovery of Rs. 96-6-3 pies as arrears of rent and cesses for 1343 to 1346 B. S., together with damages thereon. Rent was claimed for all the years at the rate of Rs. 3-8 as. per annum and road cess at the rate of Rs. 10-3 as.; but education cess was claimed only for the years 1345 and 1346 at the late of Rs. 12-12-9 pies. The last circumstance is explained by the fact that the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act was not extended to the District till 1938. The amounts claimed for the two cesses, which were startingly disproportionate to the rent paid by the Respondents, were calculated on the annual value of the lands, as determined at the last cess valuation made in 1923. It appears that although the Respondents are raiyats, they had at that time some tenants under them and were, therefore, treated as tenure-holders for the purposes of the Cess Act and the lands were valued in their hands as a tenure at Rs. 164-13 annas. The claim for the cesses was calculated on that amount. 2. In their written statement no question was raised by the Respondents as to the claim for rent, but they complained that the claim for the cesses was excessive. 164-13 annas. The claim for the cesses was calculated on that amount. 2. In their written statement no question was raised by the Respondents as to the claim for rent, but they complained that the claim for the cesses was excessive. Their contention was that they were cultivating raiyats and as such liable, in respect of both the cesses, only for amounts calculated on the rent paid by them. 3. The learned Munsif, before whom the valuation roll was produced, decreed the claim for road cess in full. As to the education cess, however, he held that the Respondents were admittedly raiyats and were, therefore, only liable, under sec. 30 (4) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, for seven-tenths of the cess calculated at the statutory rate upon the rent paid by them. In the result, he decreed education cess at 3 1/2 pice per rupee of the annual rent of Rs. 3-8 annas. The Respondents accepted the decision as to road cess and did not appeal, presumably for the reason that according to the view of this Court a valuation roll prepared under the Cess Act must continue to be the basis for the calculation of road cess, till it is revised. The Plaintiffs, however, appealed against the decision as to education cess and the only question canvassed before the learned District Judge appears to have been whether the Respondents were actually cultivating raiyats during the period of the claim. He held that they were and in that view dismissed the appeal. 4. The facts found, therefore, are that the Respondents were tenure-holders in the technical sense of the Cess Act at the time of the cess valuation and the lands were in fact valued as a tenure. They have since become cultivating raiyats-there being no longer any under-tenants-and were so during the period to which the claim relates. 5. Since the claim relates to a period immediately succeeding the introduction of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, in the area concerned, the finding involves that the Respondents had already become cultivating raiyats when the Act came into force in their locality. No question, therefore, arises as to the consequences of a change of status after a person has once come under the operation of the Act and has been assessed on a certain basis. 6. No question, therefore, arises as to the consequences of a change of status after a person has once come under the operation of the Act and has been assessed on a certain basis. 6. The Appellants accepted the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, but contended that the Respondents were still liable to pay education cess as tenure-holders. On their behalf two points were urged before us. It was said that a person, recorded as a tenure-holder in the valuation roll, prepared under the Cess Act, could not claim to be treated as a cultivating raiyat for the purposes of the education cess. It was said in the second place that assuming the Respondents could and were to be treated as cultivating raiyats, still, the annual value of the lands held by them having been actually ascertained under the provisions of the Cess Act, they were liable to pay education cess thereon under the second of the alternative provisions contained in sec. 30 (4) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act. 7. The second of the Appellant's contentions can be disposed of briefly. Sec. 30 (4) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act lays down that, every cultivating raiyat shall pay the primary education cess calculated at a certain rate " upon the rent payable by him or upon the annual value, as ascertained under the provisions of the Cess Act, 1880, of the land held by him." It is to be noticed that the sub-section simply lays down two alternatives, but does not add that of the two amounts, whichever is greater or whichever is less shall be payable. The implication clearly is that the two alternatives are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist: in other words, when there is a rent payable by a cultivating raiyat, there cannot be at the same time an annual value ascertained of the lands held by him which seems to represent correctly the position under the Cess Act. In the present case there is the rent of Rs. 3-8 as., payable by the Respondents. If they are to be taken to be cultivating raiyats, there is no annual value determined of the lands held by them as such and they cannot be held liable to pay education cess on the basis of the valuation made of the lands as a tenure. 3-8 as., payable by the Respondents. If they are to be taken to be cultivating raiyats, there is no annual value determined of the lands held by them as such and they cannot be held liable to pay education cess on the basis of the valuation made of the lands as a tenure. In any event, assuming the two alternatives are not mutually exclusive, the Respondents can justly claim to be assessed under the more advantageous of them, since both are equally applicable and available. It is clear that if the Respondents can establish their right to he treated as cultivating raiyats, the Appellants cannot succeed on their second contention. 8. With regard to their first contention, the Respondents reply was that sec. 32 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, which made the provisions of the Cess Act applicable to the assessment and levy of the primary education cess, was careful to omit acts done under the former Act which were not so made applicable. On the other hand, sec. 107 of the Cess Act laid down that nothing done under that Act should be deemed to affect the rights of any person in respect of any immovable property except as otherwise expressly provided therein. It was not reasonable to suppose that in enacting the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, the Legislature intended to hold persons to cess valuations made a considerable time ago and to make them liable to pay education cess, as calculated thereon. It was true that under sec. 29 (2) of the Act, the education cess was to be levied on the annual value of land as determined under the Cess Act, but the intention of the Legislature was that if and when a fresh cess valuation was made after the passing of the Rural Primary Education Act, education cess would then be levied on that valuation. Reference was also made to the absence of any mention of the Cess Act in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 30 and it was contended that in the case of a tenure, the annual value was not the value determined under the Cess Act. 9. In our opinion, the intention of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act is reasonably plain and there is no room for these far-fetched ingenuities. (3) of sec. 30 and it was contended that in the case of a tenure, the annual value was not the value determined under the Cess Act. 9. In our opinion, the intention of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act is reasonably plain and there is no room for these far-fetched ingenuities. It is more difficult to suppose that the Legislature intended to keep a taxation measure indefinitely in abeyance till a fresh cess valuation was made than to suppose that it intended to adopt an old valuation which was still operative for a similar purpose. Neither the object of the Act, which was to " make better provision for the progressive expansion of primary education," nor its several provisions warrant any such view. In Chapter IV alone, it is linked with the Cess Act through as many as four sections. Sec. 35 makes the definitions contained in the Cess Act, among those that of "annual value of land," applicable.. Sec. 29 (1) says that wherever the provisions of the Chapter may be extended, all immovable property on which cesses are assessed under the Cess Act, shall be liable to the payment of a primary education cess; and sub-sec. (2) of the section says in the clearest possible manner that the primary education cess shall be levied on the annual value of land as determined under the Cess Act. It does not say that the cess shall be levied on the annual value to be determined. Sec. 32, in our opinion, only imports the machinery portion of the Cess Act, but if its object or effect is to exclude acts done under the Cess Act, as contended, it is to be noticed that the section makes itself " subject to the provisions of this Chapter" and thus saves the operation of sec. 29 (2) which attracts an act done under the Cess Act, viz., the valuation roll prepared. Lastly, we are unable to see that sec. 107 of the Cess Act has any bearing on the matter. Assuming that if the valuation made under the Cess Act is applied for the levy of the education cess, an act done in accordance with the Cess Act is made to affect the rights of persons in respect of their immovable property, the saving contained in sec. 107 of the Cess Act has any bearing on the matter. Assuming that if the valuation made under the Cess Act is applied for the levy of the education cess, an act done in accordance with the Cess Act is made to affect the rights of persons in respect of their immovable property, the saving contained in sec. 107 of the Cess Act cannot avail against a specific provision in another statute, whereby the results of certain proceedings taken under the Cess Act are adopted for another purpose. 10. In our opinion, there is no escape from the definite provision contained in sec. 29 (2) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act that whenever there is an existing cess valuation, the education cess shall be leviable on the annual value of land as determined by that valuation, if Chapter IV of the Act has been extended to the area. The Act takes over, as it were, the platform of assessment already constructed under the Cess Act and then builds on it its own structure, but it does so in strict accordance with the design followed in the earlier Act. It does not in terms say that the status of a person for the purposes of the education cess shall be the same as his status under the Cess Act but that, we think, is necessarily implied in its scheme. Sec. 29 (2), it will be seen, first lays down the basis of assessment by adopring the valuation made under the Cess Act and by prescribing a rate and thereby it prescribes the total amount of the cess. It is this total amount, an amount calculated on the cess valuation, which is distributed by sec. 30 between the holder of the estate tenure-holders and cultivating raiyats in exactly the same manner as is laid down in sec. 41 of the Cess Act. Each has to pay a certain amount to the person next above him, but he is also entitled to receive a certain amount from the person immediately below except the cultivating raiyat who has no one under him. The liability of both the holder of the estate and the tenure-holders has reference to annual value of the lands, which obviously means the annual value as determined under the Cess Act. The liability of both the holder of the estate and the tenure-holders has reference to annual value of the lands, which obviously means the annual value as determined under the Cess Act. while the liability of the cultivating raiyat has reference, as under the Cess Act, to the rent payable by him or the annual value of his lands. Leaving aside the deductions allowable, the scheme is that the holder of the estate, the tenure-holder and the cultivating raiyat have to bear, in proportionate shares, calculated on the assessment of the annual value of their interests under the Cess Act in the same status, the total amount of the education cess which is itself calculated on the annual value as determined at the cess valuation. Since the total liability and the proportionate shares are both to be determined by reference to annual values of all the lands and the respective interests, as ascertained under the Cess Act, and since the two Acts mention the same grades of holders, it is clear that the two Acts run on parallel lines. The latter Act intends a person to have the same status as given to him in the cess valuation with which his liability and the right to re-imbursement are both linked through the "annual value." So long as "the annual value as determined under the Cess Act," which is the basis of the total levy under sec. 29 (2), remains unaltered, the annual values in sec. 30 must remain unaltered as well, which means that the status of each grade of holder which goes with the annual value of his interest must also remain unaltered. It follows that, when the Primary Education Act comes into force in any area, the liabilities under it would attach to persons holding land in the status they occupy in the existing cess valuation. 11. The contention of the Respondents that even it they are to be treated as tenure-holders, their liability cannot be calculated on the cess valuation, will not bear a moment's scrutiny. The argument is based on the fact that in sec. 30 (3), the Cess Act is not expressly mentioned. But it is clear that the annual value in the various clauses of sec. 30 is the same annual value as in sec. 29 (2), which is annual value as determined under the Cess Act. The argument is based on the fact that in sec. 30 (3), the Cess Act is not expressly mentioned. But it is clear that the annual value in the various clauses of sec. 30 is the same annual value as in sec. 29 (2), which is annual value as determined under the Cess Act. If the Respondents' contention were correct, the position would be that while the total amount of the cess was to be assessed according to one annual value, its distribution under sec. 30 would have to be made according to another value. Apart from its obviously untenable character, the contention is sufficiently disposed of by sec. 35 which says that the expression " annual value of land " shall have the same meaning as in sec. 4 of the Cess Act. 12. It may appear somewhat inequitable that the Respondents should actually be cultivating raiyats and yet be liable to pay education cess as tenure-holders, simply because at the time of the cess valuation they had some under-tenants on the land. But the case of the superior holder in the position of the Plaintiffs cannot be overlooked. They are liable to pay the cess on the annual value of the lands as determined under the Cess Act which was based on the rents paid by the under-tenants who were then the cultivating raiyats and which was as much as Rs. 164-13 annas. On that basis, they would be entitled under the scheme of sec. 30 to re-imburse themselves from the Respondents according to the same annual value. To consign them to receive an amount calculated on the rent of Rs. 3-8 as. is to curtail seriously their right of re-imbursement, while their own liability remains adjusted to the cess valuation. The Respondents who have now, brought all the lands into their khas possession are certainly not deriving less profits from them than when the lands were tenanted. In the case of Gorachand Barhal v. Mohitkrishna Kundu I. L. R. (1932) Cal. 145. a Division Bench of this Court pointed out the unfairness of the landlord being allowed to make a profit by increasing a tenure-holder's contribution towards road cess through a variation of the rent while the valuation remained unaltered. In the case of Gorachand Barhal v. Mohitkrishna Kundu I. L. R. (1932) Cal. 145. a Division Bench of this Court pointed out the unfairness of the landlord being allowed to make a profit by increasing a tenure-holder's contribution towards road cess through a variation of the rent while the valuation remained unaltered. The present is a converse case and the position is also different in that in the case cited, the rights of a person, once determined for the purposes of the Cess Act, were sought to be affected for the purposes of that very Act. But the principle, we think, applies. For the reasons given above, we hold that the Courts below were not right in holding that the Respondents were only liable to pay education cess on the rent payable by them. The Respondents, in our judgment, are liable to pay the cess on the valuation made of their lands as a tenure under the Cess Act. There is no dispute as to the correctness of the calculation. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment and the decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court, in so far as they relate to education cess, are also set aside. The Appellants will have a decree for education cess for the years 1345 and 1346 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 12-12-9 pies per annum as claimed, but as the legal point on which they now succeed was not taken in either of the Courts below, we shall make no order as to costs. Blank, J. I agree.