1. In this case the plaintiff was the owner of a patni that was specially registered and so protected at -a sale for arrears of revenue. The parent estate fell into arrears and was sold. The plaintiff purchased it and now sues to annul the tenures subordinate to the patni. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit and hence this appeal.
2. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right. Several cases have been cited to show that the patni merged in the zcmindari at the sale. The plaintiff' himself did not take this view as he afterwards sold an interest in the patni. And the point of law is by no means free from doubt. But whether the doctrine of merger applies to such transactions or not, no authority whatever has been shown us for holding that it can prejudice the rights of innocent strangers. If any one else had purchased the zemindari the present defendants would have been safe. If the plaintiff had surrendered the patni they would have been safe. It seems unreasonable to hold that the only contingency that destroys their rights is the purchase of the zemindari by their immediate landlord by whose predecessors-in-interest their tenures were created.
3. If this view is correct it is unnecessary to deal with the other points raised in the appeal.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.