Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O’Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.
1. The contention that dur-putni tenures are included within the terms of Clause (e) of Section 195 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot, we think, be supported. The words “in so far as it relates to those tenures” must, we think, be treated as expressly limiting the provision to enactments relating to putnis properly and strictly so called, and as intended to exclude those which relate to tenures, which, although resembling putnis, as dur-putnis, etc., are not strictly putnis, not possessing all the qualities of them. We answer the question in the affirmative, and the appellants are therefore entitled to have the suit dismissed as against them with costs.