1. Both subordinate Courts have held that the respondents are Brahmo Bhats and included in the term 'Brahman,' who are privileged persons, whose agricultural land cannot be attached or sold in execution of a decree under the provisions of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. It was argued here: (1) that Bhats are Brahmo Bhats and are not included in the term 'Brahman,' but are either Banias or Sudras, and (2) that the objection was raised by the judgment-debtors very late in the proceedings after attachment was made and the file was sent to the Collector to carry out the sale of the agricultural land.
2. The finding is one of fact that Brahmo Bhats are included in the term 'Brahman.' The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has given reasons for holding that the intention of the Government was to include Brahmo Bhats in the term 'Brahman.' In the Notification issued under the Act all Brahmans are granted this privilege except Marwari Brahmans. The exception of Marwari Brahmans indicates that all other sub-castes of Brahmans are included. A reference was made to the Punjab Census Report where these people were included under the heading Brahmans and also to the usage in the Central Provinces and the lower Court on the basis of that evidence held that Brahmo Bhats were Brahmans. This is a finding of fact and binding on second appeal. So long as the property is not sold the judgment-debtors are entitled to claim the privilege to which they are entitled under the Act. They are in no way stopped because we were not told how the decree-holder suffered by the objection being raised at a late stage of the proceedings.
3. We dismiss the appeal with costs which shall include fees here on the higher scale.