The central legal point established in the judgment is that a field granted as an inam and recognized as part of an inam grant by the British Government is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a money decree.

Subhedar, A J C—In Civil Suit No. 1 of 1928 the defendants obtained a money decree against the plaintiff's father, and in execution thereof attached a field, survey No. 31 of mouza Sultanpur, which is a jagir village belonging to Raje Bahadur Raghoji Rao of Nagpur. The plaintiff brought, the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the aforesaid field, being a perpetual inam by way of an unconditional gift granted to the plaintiff's family as a compassionate allowance by the Bhonsla Raja in 1799 A.D. for the maintenance of the family, was of an inalienable and impartible nature and was therefore not liable to attachment and sale in execution of defendant's decree. The defendants resisted the claim principally on the ground that, as the attached field was not recognised by the British Government as an inam under the Berar Inam Rules of 1859, the prohibition against alienation contained in R. 7 of the said Rules did not apply in the present case and that the field was therefore liable to attachment and sale. It was however admitted by the defendants that the whole of the village Sultanpur was a jagir village falling within the purview of R. 5 aforesaid. Both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that, though the field in dispute was granted by the Bhonsla Raja to the plaintiff's ancestor in perpetuity as an inam, since the said inam was not recognised by the British Government and a certificate issued to the plaintiff's ancestor under the Berar Inam Rules, the field was attachable in execution of the civil Court's decree. The plaintiff has therefore come up in second appeal.

2. The only contention pressed here on behalf of the appellant is that, since the field in suit was granted by the Bhonsla Raja to the appellant's forefather in perpetual inam and since the said field was a portion of the entire area of lands comprised in the village, which is held by the said Raja as an inam under R. 5, Berar Inam Rules of 1859, it should have been held that the said field was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the respondent's decree. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the right of the plaintiff's family in the land in dispute being merely that of an ''inferior holder'' or tenant'' under the jagirdar, who is a ''superior holder'' under the Berar Land Revenue Code, the tenant or inferior right in the field was liable to attachment and sale, even though the right of the jagirdar in the village lands was inalienable under R. 5 (2), Berar Inam Rules. The question whether the plaintiff's ancestors were ''inferior holders'' or ''tenants'', or occupied some other position, does not seem to have been agitated in the Courts below, but the respondents are not pre eluded from raising this point, which is purely one of law, in this Court.

3. There is a clear and concurrent finding; of the two Courts below that the title of the plaintiff's ancestor to hold the land in dispute accrued under Ex. P-3, which is styled as a ''danpatra,'' or deed of gift,, dated 1799, and which the then Bhonsla. Raja executed in favour of the plaintiffs-ancestor. It has also been found that in. the village papers, Exs. P 2, P-4 and P-6, the field in dispute is described as ''inam'' of the plaintiff's family. The inam certificate (Ex. P-7) in respect of the whole village, granted by the British Government in favour of the Bhonsla Raja, clearly shows that the inam is not merely of an assignment of land revenue, but of a grant in soil. The terms ''superior holder,'' ''inferior holder'' and ''tenant'' are respectively defined in S. 4 (11), (12). and (13) of the Berar Land Revenue Code of 1896. The last two terms are not synonymous, as contended for by the respondents' counsel, because the definition of a ''tenant'' expressly excludes an ''inferior holder.'' In the Berar Land Revenue Code of 1928 the term ''inferior holder'' is dropped; but 'there has been no change in the definition of a ''tenant,