Judgment Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with regard to five plots of land, namely, plots Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These plots were recorded in the survey under khewat No. 4 which was the Pradhani tenure of the defendant No. 3. This Pradhani tenure was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and purchased by the holder of Khewat No. 3, which was a mukarrari khewat, in the year 1918. The plaintiffs case is that the mukarraridar then settled the entire village consisting of Khewats Nos. 3 and 4 with them in darmukarrari right by a registered document dated the 25th of September 1919. On the 28th of September 1919, the plaintiffs made an ijara settlement with the defendant No. 3 of the right to realise rent from the tenants of the village. The lands in suit had been abandoned by their respective tenants even before the khanapuri stage of the survey, and the plaintiffs contention is that as a result of the sale of the Pradhani tenure these plots also passed to the auction-purchaser. It was further alleged that after the plaintiffs had taken the darmukarrari settlement they reclaimed these plots and converted them into paddy fields. After the ijara in favour of defendant No. 3 with regard to the right to realise rent from the tenants of the village, the defendant No. 3 executed a patta dated 26-7-39 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the plots in dispute, and the allegation is that on the strength of this patta the defendants 1 and 2 began to interfere with the plaintiffs possession. There were criminal cases between the parties and in a proceeding under Sec.145, Criminal P.C., it was held that the defendants had been in possession of the disputed plots, and that led to the institution of this present suit. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants before this Court, and their contention was that the sale of the Pradhani tenure was void in law, and that the defendant No. 3 continued to be the Pradhan even after the sale. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants before this Court, and their contention was that the sale of the Pradhani tenure was void in law, and that the defendant No. 3 continued to be the Pradhan even after the sale. It was further contended by them that before the creation of the darmukarrari interest in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 3 had converted this land into a paddy field and had thus acquired occupancy or korkar right therein. 3. The courts below have concurrently held that by the auction sale of 1918 the entire Pradhani interest including these abandoned lands passed to the darmukarraridar, and that it was the plaintiffs and not the defendant No. 3 who converted these lands into paddy fields. 4. The main contention of Mr. Mukherji who appears for the appellants before me is that because the lands in suit were abandoned lands, they could not be treated as bakasht and that consequently they did not pass to the auction purchaser when the Pradhani interest was sold in the year 1918. It may be noted at the very outset that the appellants did not claim any interest in this property by virtue of the ijara that was granted to them on the 26th September 1919, by the plaintiffs, and it could not also be contended in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Jagadish Chandra V/s. Debnath, 19 Pat. 949 that a Pradhan is not a tenure-holder, and that his rights are not liable to be sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent under Sec.208 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. But Mr. Mukherji has argued that these lands being abandoned lands, they continued to remain the property of the Pradhan even after the auction sale of the Pradhani tenure in the year 1918. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. If the Pradhani interest has now been recognised as a tenure, there is no reason why the lands which had come in possession of the Pradhan as a result of abandonment by certain raiyats should not pass by the sale which took place in the year 1918. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. If the Pradhani interest has now been recognised as a tenure, there is no reason why the lands which had come in possession of the Pradhan as a result of abandonment by certain raiyats should not pass by the sale which took place in the year 1918. According to Sec.20(3) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act: "A person interested in 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." I have quoted the old Sec.20(3) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act which now stands amended. In other words, the law of merger has to be strictly applied, and the Pradhan after the abandonment of the lands could not hold these lands as a raiyat. As has been often said, a proprietor or a tenure-holder cannot hold a raiyati land under himself and the principle of merger and coalescence would be applicable, 5 The Judicial Committee held in the well- known case of Midnapur Zemindari co. Ltd. V/s. Naresh Narayan, 51 Cal. 631, that even if the Midnapur Company purchased any jote rights in lands held in common by the co-sharers, such a purchase would in law be held to have been a purchase for the benefit of all the co-sharers, and the jote rights so purchased would by the purchase be extinguished. In Dulhin Lacchanbati Kumari V/s. Bodhnath, 26 Cal. W.N. 565, it was observed by the Judicial Committee that the doctrine of merger must be taken as it stands, and their Lordships further observed that there may be several reasons -- conveyancing reasons, reasons arising out of the object of the acquisition of the one right being merely for a temporary purpose, family reasons and others -- in the course of which the expediency of avoiding the coalescence of interest and preserving the separation of title may be apparent. These considerations are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of this case, and, on the principle of merger, it must be held that these lands could not be held by the Pradhan under himself as a raiyat, after their abandonment. 6. These considerations are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of this case, and, on the principle of merger, it must be held that these lands could not be held by the Pradhan under himself as a raiyat, after their abandonment. 6. The respondents learned Counsel has rightly drawn my attention to the Pradhani record of rights which shows that there was no khas or mal land of the Pradhan. Under Sec.27 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, this record of rights will be conclusive evidence in the case. But it was contended by Mr. Mukherji that the record of rights having been finally published in 1910 and the Pradhani tenure having been sold in 1918, there was nothing to show that the Pradhan had not within this period reclaimed the lands and acquired occupancy rights therein. But the finding in the case is that there was no reclamation whatsoever by the defendant No. 3 and that it was the plaintiffs who had reclaimed these lands. This finding is binding on me, and I have no doubt that it has been arrived at after a careful consideration of the evidence. According to the proviso to Sec.20 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the village headman could acquire occupancy rights by force of local custom or usage. But there is no case of local custom or usage made out in the present litigation. 7. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 8. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.