JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The case for the Plaintiffs is that the eleven parcels in dispute constitute their paternal permanent holding, and that they have been unlawfully evicted therefrom by the Defendant. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision He has found in favour of the Plaintiffs that they have the right alleged by them in the plots in suit and that they were unlawfully dispossessed therefrom by the Defendant on or about the 20th January 1911. This decree of the District Judge has been assailed substantially on three grounds. It has been contended in the first place that the suit is barred under cl. (6) of sec. 139 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act of 1908. That section is in these terms : ?All suits by or against headmen of villages or groups of villages (whether known as mankis or pradhans or otherwise) for a declaration of title in, or for possession of, their office or agricultural land, whether based or not on an allegation of the existence or non-existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, shall be cognisable by the Deputy Commissioner and shall be instituted and tried or heard under the provisions of the Act and shall not be cognisable in any other Court except as otherwise provided in the Act." The contention of the Appellant is that :s the Plaintiffs have been found to be headmen, the suit, which admittedly relates to agricultural land, is not maintainable in a Civil Court. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this contention, as cl. (6) of sec. 139 is intended to apply only to a suit brought by a headman of a village as such. There can be no room for controversy that this is the only interpretation possible in so far as a suit for declaration of title in or for possession of the office of headman is concerned. We are of opinion that when a suit relates to agricultural lands and is instituted by the headman of a village in his character as headman, cl. (6) operates as a bar; but it has no application to a case of the present description. The first contention consequently fails. 2. We are of opinion that when a suit relates to agricultural lands and is instituted by the headman of a village in his character as headman, cl. (6) operates as a bar; but it has no application to a case of the present description. The first contention consequently fails. 2. It has been argued in the second place that the Plaintiffs have no right of occupancy in the land in dispute, and, in support of this proposition, reference has been made to cl. (3) of sec. 20 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. That clause is in these terms : ? A person interested in any estate, tenure, village or land, whether solely or jointly with others as a temporary tenure-holder, ijaradar or farmer of rents or as a mortgagee in possession, shall not, during the period of his lease or mortgage, acquire, by purchase or otherwise, a right of occupancy in any land comprised in his lease or mortgage?. This clause can have no possible application in the determination of the rights of the Plaintiffs, which were acquired long before sec. 20 of Act VI of 1908 was framed. The predecessors of the Plaintiffs, it has been found, reclaimed the lands in 1867. At that time, Act X of 1859 was in force and its provisions continued to be applicable till Act VI of 1903 came into operation. Under sec. 6 of that Act every raiyat who has cultivated or held land for a period of 12 years has a right of occupancy in the land so cultivated or held by him, whether it be held under patta or not, so long as he pays the rent payable on account of the same. To this, there is added an exception in favour of the private lands of proprietors to which reference is not necessary for our present purpose. In the case before us, there is no room for controversy that the Plaintiffs and their predecessors occupied the land for a period of 12 years before 1908, cultivated the same, and paid rent therefor as raiyats. Consequently, they acquired, prima facie, the status of occupancy raiyats. But it has been argued that as they were ijaradars of the village from 1869 onwards, they could not have acquired a right of occupancy in the eleven parcels in suit. Consequently, they acquired, prima facie, the status of occupancy raiyats. But it has been argued that as they were ijaradars of the village from 1869 onwards, they could not have acquired a right of occupancy in the eleven parcels in suit. The application of the term ijaradar to the Plaintiffs is, however, somewhat misleading in the circumstances of this case. The Plaintiffs and their predecessors were headmen of the village, but they were not ijaradars in the sense in which the term is used in sec. 20, cl. (3), of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The mere fact that a raiyat, who has a right of occupancy in his agricultural lands, is at the same time the rent-collector of the village and is remunerated as such, does not deprive him of his right of occupancy. We are of opinion that the District Judge has correctly held that the Plaintiffs have acquired the status of an occupancy raiyat. 3. It has been argued in the third place that the judgment of the District Judge is based on surmises, and the case should be remanded for re-consideration; in this connection reference has been made to the case of Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Doyal Chaudhuri (1). We do not express any opinion as to that decision which has plainly no application to the present case. The findings of the District Judge here are based on evidence and on the circumstances of the case, and we are unable to hold that they involve errors of law such as would justify our interference in second appeal. The result is that the decree of the District Judge is affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.