ORDER

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and the suit was one commenced by them to set aside a revenue sale, and in the alternative for a declaration that their putni interest, under the estate sold, was not in any way affected by the sale and could not be annulled. The facts are not disputed and lie within a narrow compass. Touzi No. 335 of the 24-Pargannas Colleetorate which belonged to certain deities named Sri Sri Gopi Nath Jew and others was sold for non-payment of arrears of revenue on 23rd September 193C. There was a putni created under this estate as well as estates Nos. 1078 and 1233 of the 24-Pargan-nas Colleetorate, which also belonged to the deities, in favour of the predecessors of the present plaintiffs, by a registered kabuliyat dated 5th Aswin 1314 B.S. The plaintiffs who are the present putnidars instituted this suit, and their allegations in substance were that the revenue sale was premature and without jurisdiction and that there were various irregularities which made it liable to be annulled u/s 33 of the Revenue Sale Laws. In the alternative they prayed, that as their putni was one indivisible tenure under three estates of which only one was sold, it could not be annulled u/s 37 of the Revenue Sale Laws. The suit was contested by defendant 1, the purchaser at the revenue sale. She traversed all the allegations of the plaintiff, and contended inter alia that the sale was neither irregular nor ultra vires. It was urged that the putni held by the plaintiffs was separable and even if it did include the lands of the other two estates, there was nothing in law which stood in the way of the purchaser's annulling it, to the extent that it was under Estate No. 335.

2. The trial Judge decreed the suit basing his decision on one point only, viz., that the sale was without jurisdiction. On all the other points, his findings were against the plaintiffs and he held definitely that though there was only one putni created under these estates it could be annulled so far as it related to the estate sold, u/s 37, Act 11 of 1859. Against this decision, there was an appeal taken by defendant 1 and the Additional District Judge who heard the appeal while affirming the other findings of the trial Judge sent the case back to him for a rehearing on the point as to whether the sale was without jurisdiction. The trial Court, after remand and on taking additional evidence, came to the conclusion that the Collector had jurisdiction to hold the sale, and this finding has not been challenged before us by the plaintiffs. The only point that has been canvassed in this appeal is that the putni held by the plaintiffs being one integral putni under three estates could not be annulled in part by defendant 1 who was the purchaser of one of the estates. Two questions arise for determination in con-nexion with the point raised. The first is. whether the kabuliyat of 1314, created three separate tenures under the three estates, or it was only one tenure? If the tenures are separate, there is no dispute that the tenure under Estate No. 335 could be annulled. If, however, it is held that there was only one tenure created jointly under three estates, the next question would arise, as to whether the purchaser was competent to annul it in part so far as it related to the Estate No. 335.

3. The answer to the first question depends on the construction of the kabuliyat. The executants of the kabuliyats were two ladies and the recitals show that one of them had a temporary ijara lease in respect of the three properties, which were being let out in putni to both of them jointly. This was said to be in pursuance of a compromise filed in a suit in the original side of this Court, which related to all the three properties, and one of the terms of the solenama was, that these two ladies would have a putni of these three estates at an yearly rental of Rs. 9500 which was the rent payable under the ijara lease. This recital undoubtedly l