Bama Charan Gorain vs Gobindaram Marwari

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia rejecting an objection under S. 47, Civil P.C., against an attachment and sale on the ground that the attachment and sale were prevented by the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. There were three plots concerned, 414, 415 and 426 and the learned Judge held that with regard to one of these that is to say 414 that was raiyati land and with regard to 415 and 426 he has held that they were not raiyati kind. As regards 415 and 426 the learned Judge is clearly right. The plots of land have nothing whatever to do with the matter of cultivation. The learned Judge mentions that in the settlement khatian against these two plots there appears the word "stitiban" and said that that did not show that it was the interest of a raiyat. In that remark the learned Judge was not correct, but in any event the presumption which might have arisen from the use of the word "stitiban" has been amply rebutted by the, evidence.

As to plot 414 which the learned Judge has held as raiyati land there was no presumption arising from the Record of Rights and moreover the evidence also shows that it was not raiyati land at all. The land concerned, is merely part of a compound of a house and shop and does not come within the purview of the provisions of the Act at all. I would therefore dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal by the respondent relating to plot 414 and direct that the judgment-debtor pay the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.