Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.
1. The defendant-appellant's contention that the suit should have been dismissed, inasmuch as it prayed for ejectment and that relief could not be granted, cannot, in our opinion, be sustained for other relief was sought which was within the Court's jurisdiction and has in fact been granted. The only question is whether it was right to grant this relief. It is common ground that the record-of rights was prepared on the application of the proprietor under Section 103 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which empowers the Revenue Officer to ascertain and record all or any of the particulars specified in Section 102.
2. The proprietor questioned the propriety of an entry which purported to show defendant as the purchaser of the Jote-rights in certain plots of land on the ground that these rights were not transferable and the Revenue Officer, deciding in the plaintiffs' favour, ordered that 'the plaintiffs be declared as entitled to have the plots in their khas possession and that the defendant be declared as a mere trespasser over them,' and he directed that a note of this be made in the Settlement Record. The declaration is really nothing more than a decision that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the litigating parties and this is a matter the Revenue Officer is expressly authorised to decide (Section 106).
3. The decision obviously negatived the defendant's right to be entered as a tenant and the only question is whether he should have been entered as occupant.
4. It was by the amending Act of 1898 that the words 'occupant' and 'occupier' were introduced into Clauses (a) and (5) and that Clause (i) was added.
5. It is probable that the use of the two different words 'occupant' and 'occupier' has no significance, but is merely, an instance of the careless drafting which mars this very important Act; and the fact that Clause (1) was introduced at the same time, Suggests the inference that the words 'occupant' and 'occupier' were added to Clauses (a) and (c) to cover the case indicated in Clause (i). But if that be so, then the defendant's name should not have appeared at all in the record-of-rights. No appeal, however, has been preferred against his name being shown in the record-of-rights, and if it be shown, then, it would lead to a misimpression if the note proposed by the Revenue Officer were not recorded. For this reason 1 think we ought not to interfere with the decree of the lower appellate Court and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
6. I agree.