JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the Defendants in an action for recovery of possession of land by the Plaintiff-Respondents. The Appellants are landlords and they had under them a tenant, named Kedar Nath Chakerbutty; he died leaving a minor widow Sukhoda Moyee, who sold on the 28th October 1902 her right, title and interest in the holding to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contended that what they had purchased was an occupancy holding, that it was transferable by local usage and that, therefore they were entitled to obtain possession. The Defendants contended on the other hand that it was not an occupancy holding, that the status of Kedar was of an under-raiyat and that whether Kedar was an under-raiyat or an occupancy raiyat, his interest was not transferable by custom or usage. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, that decree has been reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge, without any decision upon the question of the status of Kedar. He says that upon the evidence it is clear that whether Kedar was an.occupancy raiyat or an under-riayat, his interest was transferable by custom and that therefore the Plaintiffs have acquired a valid title to the property in suit. 2. It has been contended before me by the Appellants that the Subordinate Judge has missed the real point in the case; because if the interest of Kedar was that of an under-raiyat as alleged by the Appellants, that interest was not heritable: and consequently his minor widow Sukhoda did not take by inheritance any interest which she could, by the transfer, convey to the Plaintiffs. 3. In support of this position, reliance has been placed upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arip Mondal v. Raim Ratan Mondal 8 C. W. N. 479 (1904). In my opinion, the contention is well-founded. 4. In that case the Plaintiffs who were the heirs of an under-raiyat brought the suit for recovery of possession as against a lessee from the landlord. The under-raiyat died in 1305 before the end of the agricultural year but the suit was brought about the middle of the following agricultural year. In my opinion, the contention is well-founded. 4. In that case the Plaintiffs who were the heirs of an under-raiyat brought the suit for recovery of possession as against a lessee from the landlord. The under-raiyat died in 1305 before the end of the agricultural year but the suit was brought about the middle of the following agricultural year. The learned Chief Justice in delivering the judgment of the Full Bench observed as follows: In our opinion, irrespective of custom or local usage, the heir of an under-raiyat under an annual holding is entitled, on the death of the under-raiyat, to remain in possession of the land until the end of the then agricultural year for the purpose, if the land has been sublet, of realising the rent which might accrue during the year, or if not sublet, for the purpose of tending and gathering in the crops." Then he goes on to add: "In this case the suit was not brought until after expiration of the then agricultural year and the suit was ultimately dismissed. 5. It follows, therefore, that the Full Bench held that the heirs of an under-raiyat under an annual holding do not acquire any interest in his holding by inheritance. The only right which they have, irrespective of custom or local usage, is to remain in possession of the land until the end of the agricultural year for the purpose of either realising the rent which might accrue during that year or for the purpose of tending and gathering in the crops. 6. I must hold accordingly that if Kedar was an under-rayat under an annual holding, his widow Sukhoda Moyee did not acquire any interest in the property; on the other hand, if Kedar was an occupancy raiyat as the Plaintiffs allege, his interest was heritable and the Plaintiffs must be taken to have a valid title inasmuch as it has been found that occupancy holdings are transferable by custom. 7. The result, therefore, is that the decree made by the Subordinate Judge will be set aside; the case will be remanded to him for the decision of the question, namely, whether or not the interest of Kedar was that of an under-raiyat under an annual holding. 7. The result, therefore, is that the decree made by the Subordinate Judge will be set aside; the case will be remanded to him for the decision of the question, namely, whether or not the interest of Kedar was that of an under-raiyat under an annual holding. If that question be answered in the affirmative, the suit will stand dismissed; if it be answered in the negative, and it is found by the learned Subordinate Judge that Kedar was an occupancy raiyat, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.