Norman, J.@mdashThis is a suit for possession of a tenure consisting of rather more than 1 drone of land, of which the plaintiff alleges that be has a right of occupancy. The facts are shortly these. In Aghran 1274, or in other words, November 1867, the plaintiff left his homestead in the defendant''s village, and built a new house in a village belonging to another zamindar. On the 11th Pash the defendant, who was the zamindar, caused a letter to be sent to the plaintiff asking him why he had run away, saying that he did not know why plaintiff had run away, and giving him notice that he was required to be present within seven days in the zamindari cutcheri to make some arrangement about the settlement of his jote. The plaintiff gave no answer whatever to this letter and in Magh the defendant granted a patta of the land to a new ryot considering that the plaintiff had abandoned his tenure.
2. The plaintiff brought his suit praying to be restored to possession, on the 6th August 1868. That suit was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, and his decision was affirmed by the Judge of Rungpore.
3. The plaintiff appeals specially to this Court.
4. We think that the decision of the lower Court is perfectly correct. The right of occupancy given by section 6 is simply what it professes to be, a right to occupy and hold the laud. If the ryot, of his own free will, quits and abandons the land, it appears to us that there is nothing in section 6 to prevent the zamindar from re-settling the land and getting the rent to which be is entitled from a new tenant.
5. The evidence of abandonment in the present case is quite satisfactory. In leaving the village of the defendant the plaintiff ceased to be a Khodkast ryot of his village. The zamindar had no security as to when be would come back, and the plaintiff when applied to refused to state whether he would come back or cultivate the land. After the expiration of a month from the date of his letter the zamindar granted a fresh patta to a new ryot to cultivate for the year 1275. He certainly could not be bound to keep the land vacant to suit the convenience of a ryot who had run away and who not only, did not answer the defendant''s letter but who down to August did not take any steps to assert his alleged title to hold the land.
6. That being so, the Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff had abandoned the land, and the suit was properly dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed with costs.
