DINDEYAL RAM Vs. RAMZAN MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in refusing to apply the provision of Section 47, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, to the plot which was sought to be sold in execution of a rent decree obtained, by the respondent.

(2.) The plot in question is No. 771 and is a part of Khata No. 74. The learned Advocate for the appellant stresses, relying upon the words of Section 47 that: No decree or order shall be passed by any Court for the sale of the right of a raiyat in his holding or any portion thereof, nor shall any such right be sold in execution of any decree or order.

(3.) The Courts below, however, have found that plot No. 771 had long ago lost its nature of raiyati character and not only had the land completely lost its original nature of agricultural land, but also it was not necessary for the owners for the cultivation of the other raiyati lands. The learned Judicial Commissioner says: For the purpose of cultivation they have houses in other villages. These two houses are meant to be used as shops and the judgment debtors were using these houses as shops arid not appurtenance to the agricultural holding Even the witness of the appellant judgment debtor stated that they had separate residential house in their village and the attached houses were being used as shops.