1. In our opinion there is in this case no question of a retrospective effect being given to a new provision of law. When the Act V of 1894 came into effect there was no purchaser in existence. The new law was passed before the purchase was made and the purchaser must take subject to its provisions.
2. We agree with the opinion expressed by Petheeam, C.J., at the end of his judgment in Girish Chundra Basu v. Apurba Krishna Dass I.L.R. 21 Cal. 940 955.
3. We must reverse the order of the Judge and remand the matter for disposal.
4. The respondent must pay the appellant’s costs.