Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 108 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 21	 1952	 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 971 of 1950	 arising out of the judgment and decree dated August 29	 1950	 of the Court of District Judge of Zillah Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 247/16 of 1948 against judgment and decree dated September 25	 1948	 of the Court of Additional Sub Judge	 1st Court	 Burdwan	 in Title Suit No. 7 of 1946/27 of 1947. 1311 N. C. Chatterjee and Sukumar Ghose	 for the appellant. J. N. Banerjee and P. K. Ghose	 for the respondents. September 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a second appeal which	 in reversal of the judgments of the Courts below dismissed his suit	 which was one in ejectment. The suit property is a Mahal of the extent of 84 Bighas 18 Cottas situated within lot Ahiyapur village	 which is one of the villages forming part of the permanently settled estate of Burdwan Zamindari. This village was granted by the Maharaja of Burdwan in Patni settlement to the predecessors in title of defendants I to 7. The exact date of this grant does not appear	 but it is stated that it was sometime prior to the enactment of the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation	 1819 (Bengal Regulation VIII of 1819)	 hereinafter referred to as the Regulation	 and nothing turns on it. The Mahal with which this litigation is concerned	 had been at or prior to the permanent settlement set apart as Chaukidari Chakaran lands; that is to say	 they were to be held by the Chaukidars for rendering service in the village as watchmen. In 1870	 the Village Chaukidari Act	 1870 (Ben. VI of 1870)	 hereinafter referred to as the Act	 was passed	 and section 48 of that Act provides that all Chaukidari Chakaran lands assigned for the benefit of any village shall be transferred to the zamindar of the estate in the manner and subject to the provisions contained in the Act. Under section 50	 the Collector is authorized to make an order transferring those lands to the Zamindar after determining the assessment payable thereon	 and section 51 enacts that: " Such order shall operate to transfer to such zamindar the land therein mentioned subject to the amount of assessment therein mentioned	 and subject 1312 to all contracts theretofore made	 in respect of	 under	 or by virtue of	 which any person other than the zamindar may have any right to any land	 portion of his estate	 or tenure	 in the place in which such land may be situate. " In accordance with the provisions aforesaid	 the suit properties were transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan	 and on June 3	1899	 he granted the same to the predecessors in title of defendants I to 7	 who at that time held the Patni interest in respect of lot Ahiyapur. Under the grant which has been marked as exhibit B	 the yearly rental for the area was fixed at Rs. 126 8 as.	 out of which Rs. 84 4 as.	 had to be paid to the Panchayat within the 7th of Baisakh for being credited to the Chaukidari Fund and the balance of Rs. 42 4 as.	 was to be paid to the Zamindar within the month of Chaitra. Exhibit B also provides that in default of payment of kist the lands are liable to be sold in proceedings taken under the Bengal Regulation VIII of 1819. Acting under this clause	 the Maharaja applied under section 8 of the Regulation to bring the suit lands to sale for realisation of arrears	 and at the auction held on May 15	 1937	 himself became the purchaser. On February 13	 1941	 he granted the lands again on Patni to the appellant	 who filed the suit	 out of which the present appeal arises	 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge	 Burdwan	 to recover possession thereof from the defendants alleging that they had trespassed thereon. The respondents contested the suit on the ground that	 in fact	 there were no arrears of rent due under Exhibit B	 and that the sale was therefore void. The Subordinate Judge held that there were arrears of rent due from the respondents	 and that further as they had not sued to set aside the sale under section 14 of the Regulation within the time limited by law	 they could not set up its invalidity as a defence to the action in ejectment. The defendants preferred an appeal against this judgment to the District Court of Burdwan	 and there raised a new contention that under the grant	 Exhibit B	 the suit lands became part of lot Ahiyapur	 and that a sale of those lands was 1313 illegal as being a sale of a portion of the Patni. The District Judge after observing that the point was taken for the first time	 held on a construction of Exhibit B that it created a new Patni	 and that it could therefore be brought to sale	 and he also held that section 14 of the Regulation operated as a bar to the validity of the sale being questioned on the ground that the rent claimed was not	 in fact	 due. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. The respondents took the matter in second appeal to the High Court	 and that was heard by a Bench consisting of Das Gupta and Lahiri JJ. who differed from the District Judge both on the construction of Exhibit B and on the bar of limitation based on section 14 of the Regulation. They held that the effect of Exhibit B was merely to make the suit lands part and parcel of the Patni lot Ahiyapur	 and that	 therefore	 the sale of those lands only was bad	 as being a sale of a part of the Patni. They further held that as such a sale was void	 section 14 of the Regulation had no application. They accordingly allowed the appeal	 and dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been brought on a certificate granted by the High Court under article 133(1)(a). Mr. N. C. Chatterjee for the appellant urged the following contentions in support of the appeal: (1) The defendants did not raise either in the written statement or during the trial	 the plea that under the sanad	 Exhibit B	 the Chaukidari Chakaran lands comprised therein became part of the Patni settlement of lot Ahiyapur	 and	 in consequence	 their sale was bad as being of a part of the Patni	 and the learned Judges should not have allowed that point to be raised in appeal. (2) Exhibit B properly construed must be held to create a new Patni distinct from lot Ahiyapur	 and its sale is therefore valid. (3) Assuming that the sale is invalid as being of a part of a tenure	 the only right of the defendants was to sue to have it set aside	 as provided in section 14 of the Regulation	 and that not having been done	 it is not open to them to attack it collaterally in these proceedings. We see no substance in the first contention. It is 1314 true that the defendants did not put forward in the trial Court the plea that the effect of Exhibit B was to incorporate the suit lands in lot Ahiyapur Patni	 and that	 in consequence	 the sale was illegal as being of a part of the Patni. On the other hand	 the written statement proceeds on the view that Exhibit B created a new Patni unconnected with lot Ahiyapur	 and the only defence raised on that basis was that no arrears of rent were due under Exhibit B	 and that the sale was therefore invalid. But the true nature of the grant under Exhibit B is a matter to be decided on a construction of the terms of the document	 and that is a question of law. It is argued for the appellant that it would be proper in determining the true character of the grant under Exhibit B to take into account surrounding circumstances	 that to ascertain what those circumstances are	 it will be necessary to take evidence	 and that	 in consequence	 a question of that kind could not be permitted to be agitated for the first time in appeal. But it is well settled that no evidence is admissible on a question of construction of a contract or grant	 which must be based solely on the terms of the document	 there being no suggestion before us that there is any dispute as to how the contents of the document are related to existing facts. Vide Balkishen Das vs Legge (1) and Maung Kyin vs Ma Shwe La (2). It should	 moreover	 be mentioned that when the defendants sought to raise this contention in their appeal in the District Court	 no objection was taken by the plaintiff thereto. Under the circumstances	 the learned Judges were right in allowing this point to be taken. This contention must therefore be rejected. The next point for determination is as to the true character of the grant under Exhibit B	 whether it amounts to a new Patni with reference to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands as contended for by the appellant	 or whether it incorporates those lands in the Patni of lot Ahiyapur	 so as to make them part and parcel of the lands comprised therein	 as is maintained by the respondents. To appreciate the (1) (1899) L.R. 27 I.A. 58	 65. (2) (1917) L.R 44 I.A. 236	 243. 1315 true position	 it is necessary to examine what the rights of the Zamindar and of the Patnidar were with respect to Chaukidari Chakardan lands at the time of the grant	 Exhibit B. These lands had been originally set apart as remuneration for the performance of services by the village chaukidars as watchmen	 and for that reason when the village was granted to the Zamindar in permanent settlement	 the income therefrom was not taken into account in fixing the jama payable by him	 though they passed to him under the permanent settlement. Then came the Village Chaukidari Act	 and under that Act the Government put an end to the services of the Chaukidars as village watchmen	 resumed the lands and imposed assessment thereon	 and	 subject to it	 transferred them to the Zamindar; and where the Zamindar had already parted with the village in which the lands were situate	 by granting Patni	 it became necessary to define the rights of the Zamindar and the Patnidar with reference to those lands. Dealing with this matter	 section 51 of the Act provides that the title of the Zamindar on resumption and transfer by the Government shall be subject to " all contracts theretofore made ". Under this section	 the Patnidar would be entitled to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands in the same right and on the same terms on which lie held the village in which they are situate. The nature of this right has been the subject of consideration in numerous authorities	 and the law on the subject is well settled. In Ranjit Singh vs Maharaj Bahadur Singh (1)	 it was held by the Privy Council that though the reservation under section 51 is of rights under contracts made by the Zamindar and the word " contract " primarily means a transaction which creates personal obligations	 it might also refer to transactions which create real rights	 and that it was in that sense the word was used in section 51	 and that accordingly the Patnidar was entitled to institute a suit against the Zamindar for possession of those lands and was not obliged to suit for specific performance. But this does not mean that the Patnidar is (1) (1918) L.R. 45 I.A. 162. 167 1316 entitled to hold the lands free of all obligations. He is under a liability to pay to the Zamindar the assessment due thereon	 when it is fixed under section 50	 and also a share of profits. Vide Bhupendra Narayan Singh vs Narapat Singh (1)	 where it was held by the Privy Council that when Chaukidari Chakaran lands included in a Patni settlement had been resumed and transferred to the Zamindar under section 51 of the Act	 he is entitled to the payment of a fair and equitable rent in respect thereof	 and that the fixing of the rent is a condition to the Patnidar being put in possession. Vide also Rajendra Nath Mukherjee vs Hiralal Mukherjee (2) and Gopendra Chandra vs Taraprasanna (3). These being the rights and obligations of the Zamindar and the Patnidar under section 51 of the Act	 a grant of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands by the former to the latter serves	 in fact	 two purposes. It recognises that the grantee is entitled to hold those lands by virtue of his title as Patnidar of the village of which they form part	 and it fixes the amount payable by him on account of assessment and share of profits. The question then arises as to what the exact relationship is in which the new grant stands to the original Patni grant. Now	 when section 51 of the Act recognises and saves rights which had been acquired under contract with the Zamindar	 its reasonable implication is that the rights so recognised are the same as under the contract	 and that	 in consequence	 the settlement of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands in Patni must be taken to be a continuance of the Patni of the village in which they are included. But it is open to the parties to agree that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands should form a new and distinct Patni	 and the result of such an agreement will be that while the grantee will hold those lands in Patni right	 that is to say	 the tenure will be permanent	 heritable and alienable so far as his liability to pay jama and the corresponding right of the Zamindar to sell it under the Regulation if there is any default in the (1) (1925) L.R. 52 I.A. 355. (2) (3) Cal. 1317 payment thereof are concerned	 the now grant will be an entity by itself independent of the original Patni. That that could be done by agreement of parties is well settled	 and is not disputed before us. If that is the true position	 then the real question to be considered is	 what is the agreement of parties with reference to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands	 whether they are to be constituted as an independent Patni or whether they should be treated as a continuation of the original Patni or an accretion thereto	 and the answer to it must depend on the interpretation to be put on the grant. It is now necessary to refer to the material terms of Exhibit B under which the Chaukidari Chakaran lands were granted to the predecessors of respondents I to 7. It begins by stating that the Patnidars of lot Ahiyapur appeared before the Zamindar and 	prayed for taking Patni settlement of the said 84 Bighas 18 Cottas of land at a yearly rental of Rs. 126/8 as."	 and then provides how the amount is to be paid. Then there is the following clause	 which is important: "You will pay the rent etc.	 Kist after Kist according to the Kistbandi in accordance with law	 and if you do not pay the same	 I will realise the arrears together with interest and costs by causing the aforesaid lands to be sold by auction by instituting proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819 and other laws which are in force or will come into force. " Then follow provisions relating to the transfer by the Patnidars of " the aforesaid lands "	 succession by inheritance or by will to " the aforesaid lands " and the registration of the name of the transferee or successor in the Sherista	 and it is expressly stated that "so long as the name of the new Patnidar is not recorded in the Sherista	 the former Patnidar whose name is recorded in the Sherista will remain liable for the rent	 and on a sale of the Mahal by auction on institution of proceedings against him under Regulation VIII of 1819 or any other law that will be in force for realisation of arrears of rent	 no objection thereto on the Part of the new Patnidar can be entertained." 1318 Then 	there are two clause on which on the respondents rely	 and they are in these terms: " If in future it transpires that any other persons besides yourselves have Patni rights in the Patni interest of the	 said lot Ahiyapur	 such persons shall have Patni rights in these Chakaran lands also to the same extent and in the same manner as they will be found to have interests in the Patni of the aforesaid lot	 and if for the said reason any person puts forward any claim against the Raj Estate and the Raj Estate has to suffer any loss therefor	 you will make good the said claim and the loss without any objection. If in future the Patni interest in the said lot Ahiyapur be transferred for liability for arrears of rent or if the same comes to an end for any reason	 then your Patni interest in these Chakaran lands also will be transferred or will come to an end alongwith the original Patni 	simultaneously. " It is on these two clauses that the learned Judges in the Court below have based their decision that the intention of the par ties was to treat the suit lands as part of the Patni of lot Ahiyapur. Now	 it cannot be disputed that the two clauses aforesaid afford considerable support to the conclusion to which the learned Judges have come. The first clause provides that if besides the grantee under Exhibit B there were other persons entitled to Patni rights in lot Ahiyapur	 those persons also shall have Patni rights in Chaukidari Chakaran lands to the same extent as in Patni Ahiyapur. That clearly means that the rights conferred on the grantees under Exhibit B have their roots in the Patni lot of Ahiyapur. Likewise	 the provision in the last clause that the grantees will lose their rights to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands if their interest in Ahiyapur Patni was sold clearly suggests that the grant under Exhibit B is to be an annexe to the grant of Ahiyapur. As against this	 the appellant argues that the other clauses in Exhibit B quoted above strongly support his contention	 and that when the document is read as a whole	 it unmistakably reveals an intention to treat the suit lands as a distinct Patni. We must now 1319 refer to these clauses. Exhibit B begins by reciting that the grantees desired to take a Patni settlement of 84 Bighas 18 Cottas	 which is some indication	 though not very strong	 that it is to be held as a distinct entity. We have then the clause which provides that when there is default in the payment of kist	 the lands are liable to be sold in proceedings instituted under the Regulation. Now	 the law had long been settled that a sale of a portion of a Patni is bad	 but that if by agreement of all the parties interested different portions thereof are held under different sadads	 which provide for sale of those portions for default in pay ment of kist payable respectively thereon	 then each of those sanads might be held to have created a separate Patni in respect of the portion comprised therein. Vide Mohadeb Mundul vs Mr. H. Cowell(1) and Monomothonath Dev and another vs Mr. G. Glascott (2). When	 therefore	 the Zamindar and the Patnidar agreed under Exhibit B that the lands comprised therein could be sold under the Regulation when there was default in payment of kist fixed therefor	 they must clearly have intended that those lands should be constituted into a distinct Patni. Otherwise	 the clause will be inoperative and void	 and indeed	 the learned Judges in the Court below have	 on that ground	 declined to give any effect to it. Now	 it is a settled rule of interpretation that if there be admissible two constructions of a document	 one of which will give effect to all the clauses therein while the other will render one or more of them nugatory	 it is the former that should be adopted on the principle expressed in the maxim " ut res magis valeat quam per eat ". What has to be considered therefore is whether it is possible to give effect to the clause in question	 which can only be by construing Exhibit B as creating a separate Patni	 and at the same time reconcile the last two clauses with that construction. Taking first the provision that if there be other persons entitled to the Patni of lot Ahiyapur they are to have the same rights in the land comprised in Exhibit B	 (2) (1873) 20 Weekly Reporter 275. 1320 that no doubt posits the continuance in those persons of the title under the original Patni. But the true purpose of this clause is	 in our opinion	 not so much to declare the rights of those other persons which rest on statutory recognition	 but to provide that the grantees tinder the document should take subject to those rights. That that is the purpose of the clause is clear from the provision for indemnity which is contained therein. Moreover	 if on an interpretation of the other clauses in the grant	 the correct conclusion to come to is that it creates a new Patni in favour of the grantees thereunder	 it is difficult to see how the reservation of the rights of the other Patnidars of lot Ahiyapur	 should such there be	 affects that conclusion. We are unable to see anything in the clause under discussion	 which militates against the conclusion that Exhibit B creates a new Patni. Then there is the clause as to the cesser of interest of the grantees in the Chaukidari Chakaran lands when their title to lot Ahiyapur comes to an end	 and according to the respondents	 this shows that under Exhibit B the Chaukidari Chakaran lands are treated as part and parcel of the Ahiyapur Patni. If that were so	 a sale of lot Ahiyapur must carry with it the Chaukidari Chakaran lands	 they being ex hypothesi	 part and parcel thereof	 and there was no need for a provision such is is made in the last clause. But that clause would serve a real purpose if the Patni under Exhibit B is construed as separate from that of lot Ahiyapur. In that view	 when the major Patni of lot Ahiyapur is sold	 the intention obviously is that the minor Patni under Exhibit B	 should not stand out but be extinguished	 a result which could be achieved only by a special provision. We should finally refer to the clauses in Exhibit B providing for transfer of or succession to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands and for the recognition of such transferee or successor as a Patnidar of those lands. It is clear from these provision	s that such a transferee or successor is to hold the lands as a Patnidar	 different from the Patnidar of lot Ahiyapur. Reading these clauses along with the last clause	 it seems clear that the intention of the parties 1321 was that while a transfer of the Ahiyapur Patni by sale should extinguish the title of the holders of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands a transfer of these lands would have no effect on the title to the lot Ahiyapur Patni. Construing Exhibit B	 as a whole	 we are of opinion that the intention of the parties as expressed therein was that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands should be held as a distinct Patni. We must now refer to the decision on which the learned Judges in the Court below have relied in support of their conclusion. In Kanchan Barani Debi vs Umesh Chandra (1)	 the facts were that the Maharaja of Burdwan had created a Patni of lot Kooly in 1820. The Chaukidari Chakaran lands situated within that village were resumed under the Act and transferred to the Zamindar who granted them in 1899 to one Syamlal Chatterjee in Patni on terms similar to those in Exhibit B. In 1914 the Patni lot Kooly was sold under the Regulation	 and purchased by Sint. Kanchan Barani Debi. She then sued as such purchaser to recover possession of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands. The defendants who represented the grantees under the Patni settlement of 1899 resisted the suit on the ground that the sale of Patni Kooly did not operate to vest in the purchaser the title in the Chaukidari Chakaran lands	 as they formed a distinct Patni. Dealing with this contention	 B. B. Ghose J. who delivered the judgment of the Court	 observed : concerned to alter the terms of the original patni if they chose to do so; and what we have to see is whether that was done. In order to do that	 we have to examine the terms of the pattah by which the Chaukidari Chakaran lands were granted to Syamlal Chatterjee." The learned Judge then refers to the two clauses cor responding to the last two clauses in Exhibit B	 and comes to the conclusion that their effect was merely to	 restore the position as it was when the original Patni was created	 and that	 in consequence	 the purchaser was entitled to the Patni as it was created in 1820	 (1) A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 807	 1322 and that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands as being part of the Patni. Now	 it is to be observed that in deciding that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands granted in 1899 became merged is lot Kooly	 as it was in 1820	 the learned Judge did not consider the effect of the clause providing for sale of those lands as a distinct entity under the provisions of the Regulation when there was default in the payment of ret payable thereon under the deed	 and that	 in our opinion	 deprives the deci sion of much of its value. In the result	 we are unable to hold that the two clauses on which the learned Judges base their conclusion are really inconsistent with the earlier clauses which support the view that the grant under Exhibit B is of a distinct Patni. Nor do we agree with them that the earlier clause providing for the sale of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands in default of the payment of jama	 should be construed so as not to override the later clauses. If	 in fact	 there is a conflict between the earlier clause and the later clauses and it is not possible to give effect to all of them	 then the rule of construction is well established that it is the earlier clause that must override the later clauses and not vice versa. In Forbes vs Git (1)	 Lord Wrenbury stated the rule in the following terms : " If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause	 the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails. In this case the two clauses cannot be reconciled and the earlier provision in the deed prevails over the later. " We accordingly hold that Exhibit B created a new Patni and that the sale of the lands comprised therein is not bad as of a portion of a	 Patni. We are conscious that we are differing from the learned Judges of the Court below on a question relating to a local tenure on which their opinion is	 by reason of the special knowledge and experience which they have of it	 entitled to the greatest weight. It is also true that the decision in Kanchan Barani Debi vs (1) 	259. 1323 Umesh. Chandra (1) has stood now for over three decades	 though it is pertinent to add that its correctness does not appear to have come up for consideration in any subsequent decision of the Calcutta High Court	 prior to this litigation. But then	 the question is one of construction of a deed	 and our decision that the effect of an agreement of the kind in Exhibit B was to constitute the Chaukidari Chakaran lands into a distinct Patni will not result in any injustice to the parties. On the other hand	 the rule that a portion of a Patni should not be sold being one intended for the benefit of the Patnidars	 there is no reason why an agreement entered into by them with the Zamindars providing for the sale of a portion	 thereof which is really to their advantage	 should not be given effect to. Having anxiously considered the matter	 we have come to the conclusion that Exhibit B creates a distinct Patni	 that the sale thereof on May 15	 1937	 is valid	 and that the plaintiff has therefore acquired a good title to the suit lands under the grant dated February 13	 1941. In this view	 it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the point that was the subject of considerable argument before us as to whether it is open to the defendants to raise the invalidity of the sale held on May 15	 1937	 in answer to this action	 they not having taken steps to have set it aside	 as provided in section 14 of the Regulation. In the result	 the appeal is allowed	 the judgment of the lower Court reversed and that of the District Judge restored	 with costs throughout. Appeal allowed. (1) A.I.R. 1925 Cal.

The lands in question are situate in lot Ahiyapur which is one of the villages forming part of the permanently settled estate of Burdwan and had been set apart as Chaukidari Chakaran lands to be held by the Chaukidars for rendering service in the village as watchmen. At the time of the permanent settlement the income from these lands was not taken into account in fixing the jama payable on the estate. Some time before the enactment of the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation	 1819	 the entire village of Ahiyapur was granted by the then 1310 Zamindar of Burdwan	 to the predecessors in title of the defendants on Patni settlement. In 1870 the Village Chaukidari Act came into force and acting under the provisions of that Act the Government put an end to the services of the Chaukidars resumed the lands and imposed an assessment thereon	 and	 subject to it	 transferred the lands to the Zamindar. On June 3	 899	 the Zamindar granted the suit lands on Patni to the predecessors in title of the defendants who were the then holders of the village in Patni. In proceedings taken by the Zamindar under the provisions of the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation	 1819	 the suit lands were brought to sale for arrears of rent and purchased by him. On February I3	 1941	 the Zamindar sold the lands to the appellant who sued to recover possession thereof from the defendants. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground	 inter alia	 that the effect of the grant of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands on June 3	 1899	 was to make them part and parcel of the Patni settlement of the village of Ahiyapur and that	 in consequence	 the sale of those lands	 apart from the village of Ahiyapur	 was bad as being a sale of a portion of the Patni. Held	 that when the Zamindar made a grant of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands which formed part of a village which had previously been settled in Patni	 it was open to the parties to agree that those lands should form a new and distinct Patni and the result of such an agreement would be that while the grantee would hold those lands in Patni right	 that is to say	 that the tenure would be permanent	 heritable and alienable	 so far as his liability to pay jama and the corresponding right of the Zamindar to sell it under the Regulation if there was a default in the payment thereof were concerned	 the new grant would be a distinct Patni	 independent of the original Patni. Held	 further	 that construing the grant dated June 3	 899	 as a whole	 the intention of the parties as expressed therein was that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands were to be treated as a distinct Patni and that	 therefore	 the sale of the lands for arrears of rent was valid.