KHUB LAL Vs. GHINA HAZARI, OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Court is perfectly correct. It seems to us that, when No. 3148 had completely formed, and more particularly after it had been assessed and settled as a separate estate with a separate jumma, as provided for by Section 1,* Act XXXI of 1858, it became for all purposes a distinct estate, and was capable of being sold, or otherwise dealt with as such by the owner of the estate to which it had originally accreted; that, when Ramlal sold the original estate without any words, showing that he meant to convey the new estate or any right in it to the purchaser, the purchaser of the original estate acquired no more interest in the new estate than he did in any fruit or profit which had been produced by that estate before the date of his purchase. So much for the plaintiff's supposed title. As to the title of the defendant, we think it is clear that, by the conveyance of all the rights and interests of Ramlal in the new estate 3148, he, as purchaser, acquired, not only the rights and interests of Ramlal under the temporary settlement, but his right to ask for and obtain the permanent settlement after the expiration of the temporary settlement. In our opinion the appellant's claim is without the slightest foundation, either in law or justice, and we would dismiss the appeal with costs.