1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendant in a suit for rent of a putni tenure. The suit was for the year 1339 and a portion of the year 1340, the annual rent being claimed to be Rs. 1632. The dispute between the parties is as to the annual rent payable by the defendant. The facts are that the putni tenure was created in 1834 in favour of one Golap Sundari Bibi and the annual rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 1530 Sikka-Bs. 1632 in current coin and this rent was paid all along. In 1916 the tenure was sold at a putni sale and the present defendant purchased it. Thereafter in 1922 portions of the lands of the mouzas were washed away by floods of the river Darakeswar, which adjoins the tenure. Thereupon the defendant approached the plaintiff Moharaja and asked him to reduce the rent and the plaintiff Moharaja agreed to a reduction of the annual rent by Rs. 400 for a period of 10 years, namely 1329 to 1338 B. S. After the period of 10 years was over the plaintiff landlord had the putni brought to sale under Putni Regulations in 1339 B. S. and purchased it himself. The putni sale was set aside, the defendant having brought a title suit for the purpose.
2. Thereafter the present suit for arrears of rent of the years 1339 and up to Magh 1340 was brought on the old jama of Rs. 1632. The defendant pleaded that he was entitled to abatement on account of reduction of area by diluvion. He based his case upon Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act, which provides that every tenant shall be liable to pay additional rent for additional area and shall be entitled to reduction of rent in respect of any deficiency of the area by diluvion or otherwise. This plea was accepted by the trial Court, which allowed an abatement of Rs. 486 on a report of a pleader commissioner. In appeal the learned District Judge has held that the defendant is not entitled to the remedy provided by Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act, but he is bound by the terms of the putni contract. According to the contract four mouzas were permanently leased in putni to the defendant's predecessor. The rent was fixed in perpetuity and it was expressly contracted that the tenant shall not make any plea on any of the following grounds, namely reduction of collection, failure of crop, inundation, draught, diluvion by river, sand deposit, damage by flood, destruction of crop, etc. It was pleaded on behalf of the defendant that he was a purchaser at a putni sale and it was the duty of the plaintiff to bring to his notice the special terms of the contract. The learned District Judge rejected the plea on the ground that it was the duty of the defendant when he purchased the putni tenure at a sale to enquire as to the terms of the putni tenure and if he did not make proper enquiry he must suffer the consequences. We entirely agree with that view. It is the duty of a person who purchases a property to inform himself of the exact nature of the property. In the case of a putni tenure it is his plain duty to himself to find out the terms of the putni tenure. That he is not willing to give up the putni tenure is clear from his action that he had the putni sale set aside. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at three gold mohurs.