JUDGMENT D.N. Mitter, J. - The point raised in this Rule is as to whether the judgment-debtor, who is the Opposite Party before me, can invoke the provisions of sec. 49 (k) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It appears that the decree-holder, who is the Petitioner before me, applied to sell the property of the judgment-debtor. Objection was taken to the sale on the ground that she belonged to the aboriginal tribe and, as such, the property cannot be sold under sec. 49 (k). The judgment-debtor lives in Midnapore and is a Santal of that District and it has not been denied on behalf of the Petitioner that she is an aboriginal for the purpose of this chapter, but what is contended for is that as the decree-holder wanted to show by giving evidence that the predecessors of the judgment-debtor embraced Christianity so far back as 70 years from the date when the contention was raised, she cannot be regarded as belonging to the Santal tribe or caste, and I was referred to a certain passage from Mr. Risley's book "Tribes and Caste of Bengal," p. 232, Vol. II, 1891 Edition, in support of the contention that the Santals embraced a religion of a supreme deity called Thakur and that the Santals have long ceased to worship the same. Then the passage proceeded to consider the special gods in the Santals worship. I do not think that the question of the change of religion should at all come into the consideration of the provisions of the enactment namely sec. 49 (a) read with cl. (k) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question might be governed by the Act which refers to the effect of a change of religion. 2. I do not think that there is anything in the Bengal Tenancy Act which would justify me in importing into the provisions of this chapter any fact with regard to the change of the religion as affecting the status of the Santal, who admittedly according to the Opposite Party, belongs to the Santal tribe. In these circumstances, the Rule must be discharged. There will be no order as to costs.