JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Bankura, dated the 27th March 1905. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Mr. A.C. Sen, the learned District Judge, has entirely misunderstood the facts of the case. He has, throughout his judgment, spoken of the Plaintiff as the Defendant and the Defendant as the Plaintiff. The result is that his judgment is full of confusion and mistakes. However, the facts as stated by the pleaders on both sides, are very simple. The Defendant No. 1 has been in possession of a tank, leased to him by the Raja of Panchkote a long time ago. He has got a perpetual lease of this tank at a rent of Rs. 12 per annum. When the estate of the Raja was taken over by the Deputy Commissioner, under the Encumbered Estates Act, the manager proceeded to cancel this lease, although the property was not situate in the district of Manbhum but in that of Bankura He dispossessed the Defendant and leased the land to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, seems to have recovered possession and it is the Plaintiff who sues for possession. Before the District Judge the Plaintiff, who is the principal Respondent in this Court, urged that in the matter, under consideration the Civil Court had no jurisdiction; and the learned District Judge said that he was inclined to agree with him, because Act VI of 1876 did not, in his opinion, apply to property situate in Bankura. However, he added that as the Defendant had not raised this point, he refrained from coming to any finding with regard to it. 2. Now, this decision was given against the Defendant No. 1; and the Defendant No. 1 appeals to this Court, and the learned pleader who appears on his behalf raises this point and other points also before us; and in any case he says that the case should be remanded to the lower Court for a proper decision, because the decision, in the terms in which it is couched, is unintelligible. 3. Babu Ram, Charan Mitra who appears for the manager of the Panchkote Encumbered Estate, and Babu Digambur Chatterjee who appears for the Plaintiff, Very candidly admit that in their opinion Act VI of 187G does not apply to this case, inasmuch as from the terms of sec. 3. Babu Ram, Charan Mitra who appears for the manager of the Panchkote Encumbered Estate, and Babu Digambur Chatterjee who appears for the Plaintiff, Very candidly admit that in their opinion Act VI of 187G does not apply to this case, inasmuch as from the terms of sec. 10 of that Act, it is clear that the Act only applies to land situate in Chota Nagpur. Furthermore, this is laid down in the note at page 194 of the Encumbered Estates Manual. 4. In these circumstances we set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, as entirely without jurisdiction and dismiss the suit. As the plea which has been raised here by the Defendant was not raised in the Court of Appeal below we do not think he is entitled to costs. Each party will bear its own costs throughout this litigation.