SHEIKH MANSUR Vs. BRAHMAMAYEE BRAHMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant was an occupancy raiyat of the land and could not be ejected. The lower Appellate Court held that the defendant s position was that of a labourer or servant under the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge in deciding the appeal also held that if it could be found that the defendant came into possession of the land as a tenant, he was holding the land as a raiyat and was, therefore, not liable to be evicted from the land. The defendant in this case is admittedly a settled raiyat in the village and consequently, as held by the lower Courts, if he came into possession of the land as a tenant he at once acquired the right of occupancy and was not liable to ejectment. The document under which the plaintiff came into possession is a registered kabuliyat in the following terms:

(2.) The worthy of remembrances Srijukta Brahmamayi Barmani, wife of Ram Bux Roy, inhabitant of Balla, Thana and Sub-Registry Monohardi, District Dacca, by caste Kshetria, occupation Talukdari and Mahajani.

(3.) I, Sheikh Mansur, son of late Sheikh Sudan, by race Musulman, occupation cultivation, inhabitant of Majidia, Thana and Sub Registry Monohardi, District Dacca, execute this Burga kabuliyat for a term, of eleven months to the following effect: