1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and it is the result of a sale purporting to be held under the provisions of Act XI (B.C.) of 1859 and Act VII (B. C.) of 1868. The facts briefly stated are that a Howladar holding a Howla under Government Khasmekal regretted his bargain aid asked Government to manage the Howla during the unexpired term. In the Howla there is a Karsha and, after the Howla had been placed in the hands o the Government by the Howladar, the Karsha fell into arrears and, to realise the arrears, a sale was held under Act XI of 1859 at the instance of the Government. The plaintiffs sought to have the sale set aside by appealing to the commissioner but in vain. Consequently, they brought this suit.
2. I am unable to follow the reasoning of the learned Munsif, adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge and repeated before us on behalf of the respondents that Section 3 of Regulation VII or 1822 has anything to do with the matter. The position was that the Karsha was liable for the rent payable to the Howladar. But I am unable to see that the arrangement which the Howladar entered into with the Government had the effect of changing the rent into revenue and thereby rendering the Karsha liable to sale under the provisions of Act XT of 1859. Consequently, in my judgment, the sale purporting to be held under Act XI of 1859 was made without jurisdiction and I think the plaintiffs are entitled to have that declaration made as requested, as also a further declaration that their right title and interest on the mortgage have not been affected by the sale that is to say, the appeal is decreed, with costs in all Courts.
3. I agree.