Chatterjea, J. - (1.) This is a Second Misc. Appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge, Purulia, reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The Plaintiff instituted the suit for ejectment on the ground that the Defendant, who holds certain lands on condition of performing certain services to the Plaintiff deity, failed to perform his duties and therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to recover possession from the Defendant.
(2.) The Defendant claimed to be a tenant and further claimed to have Occupancy right and in lieu of rent he had to perform services. The trial Court found that the Defendant had no occupancy right and further found that the Defendant was to serve the Plaintiff in certain capacities and in lieu of services he was remunerated by the produces of the land and that the Defendant had no interest in the land. The suit was, therefore, decreed by the trial Court.
(3.) The appeal Court found that the Defendant had an interest in the land and the Defendant was a tenant; but the Defendant was not an occupancy raiyat. The appeal Court further found that in law no notice in terms of Sec. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act forfeiting the tenancy was necessary; but still he directed an issue to be raised because the pleading involved it. Therefore, he set aside the judgment of the trial Court and sent the matter back on remand. Against that order the present appeal has been filed.;