JUDGMENT
Mullick, J.
1. This appeal relates to the sale of a piece of land. The facts are these the land originally belonged to defendant No. 1. He mortgaged a portion of it to defendants. Nos. 2 and 3 and then made a second mortgage of the whole of it in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder. After the second mortgage he sold two-thirds of the land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 retaining one-third for himself. The second mortgagee sued upon his mortgage impleading defendant No. 1 as well as defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and obtained a decree for sale. When he applied to execute that decree defendant No. 1 took the objection that his interest in the land was non-saleable under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The decree-holder, it appears, failed to adduce any evidence to show whether the land was a raiyati holding or a tenure within, the meaning of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, the Execution Court declined to allow his prayer for sale in respect of the one-third share of defendant. No.1 The decree-holder now seeks to sell the two-thirds share of defendants No. 2 and 3, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 take the same objection as defendant No. 1 did in the previous execution proceedings and the question is, whether or not the interest of the judgment-debtors, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, is that of a raiyat which is non-saleable, or that of a tenure-holder which is saleable. Both Courts below have found the interest to be that of a-tenure-holder and have, therefore, allowed the execution proceedings to proceed. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly prefer this second appeal.
2. Now, the only question is, whether or not the pottah granted to defendant No. 1 can be construed so as to enable us to hold that the grantee’s interest was that of a raiyiat, mother words whether the primary purpose for which the settlement was made was the cultivation of land, as, distinguished form the collection of rent, or establishment of tenants. We have been taken through the whole of the pottah which is in Bengali, and we agree with the view of the Courts below that the pottah grants something more than the mere right to cultivate. It grants all the rights save and except the right to receive 1;he rent payable to the superior landlord. In my opinion, the grantee comes within the definition of tenure-holder under Section 5 of the Chota NagpUr Tenancy Act. Therefore, the bar to the sale of the property in execution case does not exist. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.
Jwala Fcasad, J.
3. I agree.