1. The Trial Judge has held that the property sought to be attached is a recognized sub-division of a narwa and is, therefore, liable to the process of the Court under the provisions of Bombay Act. V of 1862. On the evidence produced before the Judge, it appeared that the judgment-debtor Manibhai, now represented by the appellants, originally was the proprietor of a recognized sub-division of a narva measuring Re. 0-1-1. Twelve years ago eight gunthas were separated from that land for the purpose of building a bungalow. These eight gunthas-wore separately assessed, and Manibhai sold the site with the bungalow without any objection being raised thereto by the Revenue Authority, in fact, we may take it that the Revenue Authority recognized that site as being separately assessed and capable of being transferred by itself. The judgment debtor, however, contends that it still remains a part of the narva, so that the land still remaining to him after the separation of eight gunthas can no longer be considered a recognized sub-division of narva village. The Judge rejected this contention and directed the sale proclamation to be. issued.
2. In appeal, it has been urged that the separation of eight gunthas, even though they were separately assessed, cannot prevent the original holding of the tenant being still considered as the recognized, sub-division. What is a recognized subdivision of a narva is not defined in the Bhagdaji and Narvadari Act V of 1862. The object of the Act was to prevent any thing else than a recognized sub-division of a bhag or share in a bhagdari or narvadari village being attached or sold by a process of a Court. Now we have the. Manual published under the orders of Government to enable the Revenue Officers to understand what should be done with regard to these narvas, and under Government Resolution No. 7211 of July 26, 1909, it was directed as follows:
Section 1 of Act V of 1862 was inserted only in order to preserve the narva homestead and was not directed towards buildings erected for unconnected purposes. The Collector is at liberty to recognize any sub-division he thinks fit. The fact that land required for building purposes forms part of a narvadari holding does not act as a bar to its acquisition by a non-narvadar. A sharer in a narvadari village may, with the 'Collector's permission, relinquish any portion of his share and allow it to cease to be narva land. When a plot of narvadari land is acquired by a non-narvadar for building purposes the liability for the enhanced assessment should be thrown on the purchaser by the formal resignation of the land by all the narvadars concerned.
3. Now in this case the Collector has recognized the separation of these eight gunthas for building purposes, and we may take it that such separation in no way derogated from the constitution of the narva home-stead, and that as the Collector was, in the circumstances of this case, at liberty to recognize any sub-division, these eight gunthas must be considered as having been recognized as a sub-division, so that the balance of the judgment-debtor's share in the narva would necessarily also constitute a recognized sub-division. Otherwise, if the contention of the judgment-debtors were: to succeed, it would follow that if a. sharer in a bhagdari village with the permission of the Collector separated a small portion of land for building purposes unconnected with the preservation of the homestead, and sold that portion, then the. rest of the share would, under no circumstances, be a recognized-sub-division and would not be liable to the process of a Civil Court. We do not think that was intended by Act V of 1862. The appeal is dismissed with costs.