1. We do not think that there is any force in this application for revision. The plaintiff-applicant sued on foot of a mortgage bond. The original mortgagor was one Kashi Nath and he sold his right of redemption to Mahanth Parmeshwar Das, defendant. The plaintiff Jaswant Rao is transferee of the rights and interests of the original mortgagee Bansidhar. On a suit being instituted the learned Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage was enforceable. He was further of opinion that both Kashi Nath and Parmeshwar Das who were Brahmins, wore members of an agricultural tribe as defined in the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. He therefore acted under Clause 3 of Section 9 of the Act because the mortgage had been executed subsequently to the passing of the Budelkhand Land Alienation Act No. 2 of 1903. Ha referred the case to the Collector of the district of Banda with a view to the exercise of the power conferred on the Collector by Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 9. No decree was passed under the circumstances. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who refused to admit the appeal on the ground that no decree bad bean passed or could be passed by the trial Court under the circumstances of the case.
2. The plaintiff has come here in revision. Revision would lie in so far as this Court would consider whether the Subordinate Judge has exercised his jurisdiction correctly in refusing to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and referring the case to the Collector. The ground taken here is that Parmeshwar Das was a Bairagi and that therefore ceased to be a Brahmin and a member of an agricultural tribe. We have looked through the evidence. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff; the plaintiff Jaswant Rao himself and one Chuttan Lal. Both of them expressed their ignorance as to whether Parmeshwar Das was a Brahmin or not. One Banwari, Mukhtar-am of Parmeshwar Das, was examined on behalf of the defence. He stated that, Parmeshwar Das was a Brahmin and had become a Bairagi. This by itself does not connote renunciation by Parmeshwar Das, involving loss of his caste as Brahmin. There may be Bairagia of various status in life, some who may have renounced all civil status, and some who have not. The plaintiff has made no attempt to prove that Parmeshwar Das has ceased to be a Brahmin. In the circumstances the learned Subordinate Judge was correct in holding that Parmeshwar Das was still a Brahmin and a member of an agricultural caste. It can be pointed out that Parmeshwar Das engages a mukhtar and buys property. This shows that he has no desire to give up his caste or property.
3. We dismiss this application with costs which shall include counsel's fees here on the higher scale.