1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them to recover rent from the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 as osaf howladars. The plaintiffs claimed as purchasers at a revenue sale of a 9-pie share in a nim-osat taluk, within a resumed khas mahal bearing Touzi No. 856. The revenue sale took place on 20th March 1912 (1318). The tenant defendants pleaded that they were not liable to pay rent direct to the plaintiffs inasmuch as there was in existence a howla created long ago by the outgoing owners of the nim-osat talvk in favour of themselves.
2. When the case first came on for hearing before us on 7th March last, we were of opinion that a remand would be necessary for the determination of several questions of fact. On further consideration, however, we came to the conclusion that all we required to know was when the nim-oats taluk was last re-settled. It was argued before us on behalf of the plaintiffsappellants that the howla, if it existed, was annulled by the revenue sale in 1912. The date, therefore, of the last 8 ettlement of the nim-ogat taluk was clearly of the highest importance. We accordingly a'djourned the case for the Vakils to obtain the necessary information from their clients. It is now conceded for the appellants that the last Settlement of the nim-osat taluk took place in 1908. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the howla existed from 1290 (1883) and that rent was paid in respect of it down to 1316, two years after the final publication of the Record of Rights in Chait 1314 He further finds that it had an existence altogether separate from and independent of the nim-osat taluk. It follows that it could not be affected by the sale of the nim-osat taluk in 1912 (1318) (see Section 52 of Act XI of 1859). In these circumstances it is clear that the plaintiffs cannot recover rent directly from the tenant defendants, and that their suit was rightly dismissed.
3. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.