Trevelyan and Wilkins, JJ.
1. The plaintiffs are purchasers at a sale for arrears of Government revenue. They sue for arrears of rent. The defendants claim that they have paid their rent to persons to whom that rent was assigned by the former proprietor.
2. The sole question before us is whether having regard to the terms of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 the plaintiff is entitled to disregard the arrangement made with the former proprietor.
3. It has been argued before us that, although the plaintiff has purchased what upon a partition by the Collector has become a separate estate bearing a separte towji number, and charged with a separate amount of Government revenue, he is not the purchaser of an ' entire estate ' within the meaning of Section 37, and also that he only acquires the estate free from the incumbrances which may have been imposed upon it after the separation. We fully agree with the learned District Judge's decision on both these questions and with the reasons which he has given. An estate, the revenue of which is partitioned under the Partition Act, becomes divided into several entire estates, each one becomes wholly independent of the other for all purposes, and is, therefore, an entire, that is, a complete and self-contained estate. As far as we know, it has always been considered that a partition by the Collector has this effect. Section 123 of the Partition Act is to our minds quite clear on this subject. The fact that the Partition Act is subsequent to Act XI of 1859 makes no difference. The only question is whether the new estate created is an entire estate such as was contemplated by Act XI of 1859. It has not been suggested to us that there is a difference of any kind between an estate, the revenue of which has been separated under the Partition Act and of which separate possession has been given, and the entire estates contemplated by Act XI of 1859.
4. The second question depends upon what is the meaning of the words 'the time of settlement ' in Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. It is clear, we think, from the preamble that the settlement means the contract with Government whenever that may have been made. In the case of a permanently-settled estate it means the permanent settlement. In other cases it means the last settlement with Government whenever that may have been. The partition does not alter the amount of revenue payable, it merely apportions that amount. There is no settlement of the revenue in any sense at the time of such partition. We dismiss this appeal with costs.