1. Slackness of phrase and thought is responsible for this very simple case being complicated by many irrelevant arguments in both Courts and having taken a year to try. The phrase that perhaps shows the greatest laxity of expression and has been the most misunderstood is that relating to the sir land in the village in question when it was sold. In every document from the preliminary decree for sale to the warrant for delivery of possession and indeed the report of delivery of possession, the village is ordered to be sold or said to have been sold sir zamin chhorke or ''excluding sir land.'' Those words taken liter-rally import a sale of neither the proprietary right nor the occupancy right in the sir land, one which would leave the original proprietor still owner of that land as sir. It is, however, clear that, their real meaning is to include in the [sale the proprietary right but to exclude from it the occupancy right in the sir land. But all through the case, even in this Court, most of the reasoning has been based on the literal meaning of the words, and other parts of it on their real meaning.

2. The only facts that are relevant are these. The proprietary right in the