DEB NATH DAS BAIRAGI Vs. RAM SUNDAR BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an attempt to revise a decision passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The way it is sought to make this application one under Section 115 is as follows: It is said that the Judge has made a statement as to an alleged admission which is inaccurate. He says in the judgment that the defendants concede, however, that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land as a bhag tenant. It is said that that is not a fact and that no reference to tenancy is made in the pleadings. That appears to be so. But what was admitted was that the plaintiff was in possession as an adhiar. The question which is raised on that point is whether the adhiar is a tenant or a labourer. If he is a tenant, then his possession would be protected under Section 9. If a labourer, it would be otherwise. In the first place, there is no affidavit before us that an adhiar in tin s part of the country means a labourer "and not a tenant." There is, on the contrary, a statement in the affidavit that the land was "let out" to the plaintiff as adhiar, which term is appropriate to the existence of a tenancy. The various books upon the subject which were referred to show that very largely an adhiar is a tenant and the learned Judge who decided this case must be well aware of the meaning of the term in the district in which his Court is. Under those circumstances, a case has not been made out for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE Rule is, accordingly, discharged with costs. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.