Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Two grounds of appeal are mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, namely, that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the property and secondly that the suit was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept the argument in favour of this last ground of appeal. With regard to the first point, it is urged that nobody except a human being is capable of acquiring or holding an 'occupancy' tenancy, and reliance is placed upon a ruling of the Board of Revenue, No. 19 of 1912, Babu Hira Das v. Pandit Sheo Dat Tiwari. It has to be admitted that property of all descriptions generally speaking, can be held by a math; but it is attempted to draw a distinction between an occupancy holding and other classes of property. In the present case the courts below have found that the property which it is sought to redeem formed portion of the math property and that it was held by the mortgagor as mahant. It was pleaded in the suit that the mortgagor had been deposed from his office as mahant, and that he was succeeded by Sheo Pujan Gir, who was in turn succeeded by the present plaintiff. The mortgagor was made party to the suit, but he has not appeared to defend the case. It must be admitted that it is not necessary that the owner of an occupancy holding should do the actual cultivation with his own hands, He is quite entitled to, and in many cases must, employ others to do the cultivation. It is quite clear that there is no express prohibition against the acquisition of an occupancy holding by the manager of a math on behalf of the math. We do not think that it is possible to infer such a prohibition from any suggestion of alleged policy in the Tenancy Act.
2. We, therefore, think that the decision of the court below was correct and ought to be affirmed. We dismiss the appeal with costs.