1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property on declaration of title. The lands in dispute were originally chowkidari chakran lands, which were resumed under the provisions of the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, and were transferred to the plaintiffs on the 2nd February 1900. Since then, the proprietors of the estate have defaulted to pay Government revenue, with the result that the parent estate was sold on the 27th March 1907 when it was purchased by the appellants. The plaintiffs contend that their title to the chowkidari chakran lands was not affected by the sale of the parent estate and that they are consequently entitled to recover possession thereof. The defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the sale under the provisions of Act XI of 1859 transferred to them, not merely the lands comprised in the parent estate, but also the resumed chowkidari chakran lands. The Courts below have concurrently negatived this contention on the authority of the decision in Kashim Sheik v. Prasanna Kumar Mukerjee (1). The correctness of that decision, however, has been called in question, and our attention has been drawn to the cases of Kazi Newaz Khoda v. Ram Jadu Dey (2); Harak Chand v. Charu Chandra Sinaha 8 Ind. Cas. 766 : 13 C. L. J. 102 : 15 C. W. N. 5. and Rakhal Das v. Madhab Chandra 8 Ind. Cas. 828 : 13 C. L. J. 109 : 15 C. W. N. 61. In our opinion, there is no room for controversy upon one fundamental question decided by the Judicial Committee in the case of Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debt 40 Ind. Oas. 981 : 21 C. W. N. 609 : 32 M. L. J. 565 : 15 A. L. J. 390 : 25 C. L. J. 499 : 19 Bom. L. R. 462 : 2 P. L. W. 1 : (1917) M. W. N. 459 : 6 L. W. 101 (P. C). namely, that chcwkidari chakran lands form part of the original estate, and, when they are resumed and transferred to the zemindar, the latter does not acquire thereby a new estate, as was erroneously laid down in Kashim Sheik v. Prasanna Kumar Mukevjee 33 C. 596 : 10 C. W. N. 598 : 5 C. L. J. 299. The Village Chowkidaris Act recognises the existing title of the zemindar to the lands resumed, and the estate taken by him Under the order of transfer is in confirmation and by way of continuance of his existing estate; This proposition, however, is of no real assistance to the appellants, for as purchasers, they can claim title only to what has been actually exposed for sale by the Collector. In the case before us, it is clear that the chowkidari chakran land have not been sold by the Collector; consequently, the appellants have acquired no title to such lands by their purchase. Indeed, the state of facts here is identical with what was foreshadowed in the case of Kazi Newaz Khoda v. Bam Jadu Dey 34 C, 109 : 5 C. L. J. 33 : 11 C. W. N. 201. The Revenue Authorities have treated the parent estate as divided into two, namely, one comprising all the lands of the parent estate except the chowkidari chakran lands and the other including the chowkidari chakran lands. Rakhal Dai v. Madhab Chandra (4). The Revenne Authorities have thus substituted two distinct estates in place of what originally constituted one integral estate. Whether this was or was not the necessary consequence of the provisions of the Village Chowkidari Act, weneed nor, discuss on the present occasion; we are concerned only with the legal effect of what has actually taken place. The Collector has treated the enfranchised chowkidari Chakran lands as constituting by themselves a separate estate subject to the payment of a separate assessment made under the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870. The residue of the original estate as created at the time of the Permanent Settlement has been treared as a separate estate, and that alone was exposed for sale for recoveiy of the arrears due there from. The sale was not held for the recovery of the amalgamated revenue, namely, the revenue assessed at the time of the Permanent Settlement and the subsequent assessment made at the time of the resumption under the Village Chowkidari Act, nor was the amalgamated estate brought to sale. In these circumstances, it is clearly impossible to maintain the position that the purchaser at the revenue sale has acquired title to the chowkidari Chakran lands which were never put up to sale for realization of the arrears due from the remainder of the estate. We hold accordingly that the decree made by the Subordinate Judge is correct but not on the grounds set out in his judgment.The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.