JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration brought by him against the respondents in pursuance of an order of the Revenue Court in a partition case directing him to establish his right in the Civil Court. The plaintiffs sued defendants 1 to 20 for a declaration that he and defendants 21 and 22 owned the entire patti Ajudhia Singh and half of patti called Mahip Singh together with sir plots in patti Mahip Singh and the entire patti shamilat as per shares detailed in the plaint. In the alternative, he prayed that if it be proved that under sale deed dated 9th February 1897, executed by Mahip Singh and Kamta Singh in favour of Ambika Bakhsh Singh, the one-fourth share of patti shamilat was also sold, then a declaratory decree be passed in favour of himself and defendants 20 and 21 to the effect that they owned the entire patti Ajudhia Singh, half of patti Mahip Singh and three-fourths share in patti shamilat together with sir plots situated in patti Mahip Singh and patti shamilat. The Court of trial passed a decree for a declaration in respect of the properties mentioned in the alternative relief together with certain sir plots. The plaintiff appealed claiming that he was entitled to relief No. 1 which involved the case that by a sale deed (Ex. B-8) nothing in the shamilat patti passed to the vendee. The defendants' title to the property in suit arose under two deeds of sale, one dated 9th February 1897 (Ex. B.8) and the other dated three days later i.e., 12th February 1897 (Ex. B-7). In village Anrudhpur there is a thok called Thok Akram Singh of 10 biswas. This thok was subdivided into three pattis, patti Mahip Singh of 5 biswas and patti Ajudhia Singh of 5 biswas and a shamilat patti appertaining to these two main pattis. The revenue of the shamilat patti was noted against the main pattis. By Ex. 2 the predecessors of the plaintiff sold their half share out of 5 biswas of patti Mahip Singh in village Anrudhpur with all their dakhili and khariji rights connected with the share sold. It may be noted that in the sale deed there is no mention of the shamilat patti. Some of the sir plots were exempted from this sale deed and these sir plots were three days later transferred by the sale deed (Ex. B-7).

2. The only question involved for decision is whether the sale of half share in the main or the parent patti involved the transfer of the shamilat patti also to the extent to which it was accessory to the share sold in the main patti. The two Courts below have held against the plaintiff's contention. In this second appeal it is not necessary for us to decide the question, whether the transfer of the parent patti in a pattidari village operates as a transfer of the shamilat patti also or not as a pure question of law. We propose to decide the question on the language of the sale deed in question. In the sale deed in transferring the half of 5 biswas share the vendors stated that they were transferring the half of share in the patti with all the external and internal rightsandinterest appurtenant to the share. These words in our opinion are quite appropriate to include a right in respect of the shamilat land also. On our interpretation of the sale deed in question the vendors intended to sell half of the 5 biswas share and the corresponding share in the shamilat patti. The interpretation of a deed of sale couched in similar language came up for decision before their Lordships of the Privy Council in Aya Ram v. Rup Chand ('37) 31 SLR 646, and their Lordships adopted the same interpretation as we are doing in the present case. The Court below has further considered the question involved in the present appeal in the light of the subsequent conduct of the parties and we are in full agreement with the view taken by it. The learned Counsel for the appellant has very frankly stated before us that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council mentioned above it is very difficult for