Judgment Choudhary, J. 1. This application by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri Harihar Charan Choudhary, Small Cause Court Judge, Purulia, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of the price of bhag paddy. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in ques- tion belongea to one Rabi Mahato who was a korfa with respect co it, and he died leaving his widow Bhaimani and his sister Jurani. The plaintiff is the son of this Jurani, that is to say, the plaintiff is the sisters son of Rabi Mahton. According to the case of the plaintiff, Bhaimani inherited the land in question after the death of her husband and she gave the land to the defendant in bhag cultivation in year 1356 B. S. In the month of Assarh of that year she married in sanga form and before her marriage she asked the defendant to deliver the bhag paddy to the plaintiff and the defendant consented to do so. The suit was contested by the defendant who admitted that he was in possession of the land in question in the year 1356 B. S. but pleaded that he was not bhagidar under Bhaimani, but was kut bhagidar under Madan Singh the recorded tenant, and that he had given the kut bhag of paddy to the said Madan Singh. He also contended that there was a serious question of title involved in this case and, as such, the suit was not triable in the Small Cause Court. 2. The learned Small Cause Court Judge found that Rabi Mahto was a Korfa of the land in question and, after his death Bhaimani carne in possession of the same as korfa thereof and the defendant was liable to pay bhag paddy to the plaintiff. He also held that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and on his above findings he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of the price of bhag paddy and straw, but he rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for interest thereon. Against this decree the defendant has come up to this Court in revision under Sec.25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 3. Mr. Against this decree the defendant has come up to this Court in revision under Sec.25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 3. Mr. S. K. Mazumdar appearing for the petitioner has raised three points in this case, namely, (1) that the case involved determination of a serious question of title and such it was not triable in Small Cause Court, (2) that this being a suit for realization of rent was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court and (3) that, in any view of the matter, on his own case of the plaintiff, the land having been given in bhag cultivation to the defendant by Bhaimani, the right to receive the produce could not be transferred to him without a written instrument. 4. With respect to the question of title, the learned Counsel has raised two points, namely, that the land in question belonged to Madan Singh whose name was recorded in the record-of-rights and that, even if Rabi Mahto was a korfa thereof, it was not heritable and Bhaimani could not inherit, it. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned Small Cause Court Judge has found that Rabi Mahto was in possession of it as a korfa which, as I understand, means an under-raiyati. There are sufficient materials on the record as discussed by the learned Judge which establish that Rabi Mahto was in possession of the land in question. This is a question of fact which has been determined by the learned Judge and nothing has been shown to me to differ from the conclusion to which he has arrived. The second point that the korfa (under-raiyati) right was not heritable, is a question which has to be determined now. I may here observe that this question was not raised by the petitioner in the Court below, but if it is a question purely of law, I do not think I am precluded from considering it as a Court of revision. Mr. S. K. Sarkar appearing for the -opposite party has conceded that ordinarily korfa is not heritable, but if there is a custom to the effect, it may be inherited by the heirs. Mr. S. K. Sarkar appearing for the -opposite party has conceded that ordinarily korfa is not heritable, but if there is a custom to the effect, it may be inherited by the heirs. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench case of this Court, --Muchi Ram Bagal V/s. Balaram Bhumij, AIR 1930 Pat 562 (A), which lays down that the question of whether an under-raiyat who acquires occupancy right acquires also right of heritability, depends entirely on local custom. In --Krishna Mahto V/s. Ramananda Bhakat, AIR 1933 Pat 635 (B), it was held that though the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act does not expressly acknowledge the occupancy right of Korfardar under-raiyat such a right can be acquired by custom and is heritable. Thus it appears that the korfa (under-raiyat) right can be heritable if there is a custom to that effect. The determination of this question is not purely a question of law, but a mixed question of law and fact. In the present case the plaintiff specifically averred in para 1 of the plaint that Bhaimani inherited the land in question after the death of her husband as widows estate and was in possession of the same. The defendant did not challenge this averment in his written statement, and therefore, it appears that no evidence was given to prove whether there was a custom of heritability of an under-raiyati right. That being so, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this question, for the first time, here. I, therefore, overrule this objection. Thus it appears that on the pleadings of the parties no serious question of title had to be decided in this case. The suit was purely a suit for money-value of the bhag cultivation, and, even if any question of title had to be gone into incidentally, the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to decide that matter. 5. The next contention raised by Mr. Mazumdar is that this being a suit for realization of rent the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. Under Article (8) to Schedule 2, Small Cause Courts Act a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house-rent, has been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Mr. The next contention raised by Mr. Mazumdar is that this being a suit for realization of rent the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. Under Article (8) to Schedule 2, Small Cause Courts Act a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house-rent, has been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Mr. Sarkar appearing for the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that this was not a suit for rent, but a suit for realization of the money value of bhag cultivation, there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The case made out in the plaint was that Bhaimani gave the land to the defendant in bhag cultivation with a stipulation that the bhagidar shall get half the paddy as his wages for cultivation, and the suit was brought for realization of the produce after allowing half to the defendant as his wages for cultivation. The very frame of the suit shows that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the claim for realization of bhag produce was not a claim for rent, but a claim for his share of the produce in bhag cultivation. In -- Jadab Chandra V/s. Gopal Chandra, AIR 1924 Cal 837 (C). it was held that a suit for half share of paddy and straw grown under settlement from plaintiff with stipulation to deliver half share of the produce is cognizable by the Small Cause Court as there was nothing in the plaint suggesting that the defendant was a tenant. In -- Rahimoddin Mollah V/s. Nirodi Barani Debi, AIR 1924 Cal 1036 (1) (D), it was held that a Small Cause Court can entertain a suit for recovery of price of half the produce of land against a Bargadar. The term Bargadar was held ordinarily to mean a cultivator, who, under the terms of his contract, is a servant or a labourer under the holder of the land. Here in the present case also, as already stated, the plaint is very specific on the point that the defendant was allowed to cultivate the land on the stipulation that he would be paid half the produce by way of wages for cultivation. Here in the present case also, as already stated, the plaint is very specific on the point that the defendant was allowed to cultivate the land on the stipulation that he would be paid half the produce by way of wages for cultivation. Considering the facts and the law discussed above I hold that the claim for half produce and straw from bhagidar in the present case was not a claim for rent and the suit was cognizable by a Small Cause Court. 6. The last contention of Mr. Mazumdar for the petitioner was that the land having been given to the defendant in bhag cultivation by Bhaimanj, to the plaintiff could not get the right of realizing it unless the right was assigned to him by a written instrument. He relies on Sec.130, T. P. Act which provides that the transfer of an actionable claim shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent and shall be complete and effectual upon the execution of such instrument. In -- Rameshwar Narain Singh V/s. Reknath Koeri, AIR 1923 Pat 165 (E), it was held that the rent, arrear and current due, being actionable claims, can be only transferred by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent. Mr. Mazumdars contention is that since Bhaimani before marrying in sanga form told the defendant to deliver the produce to the plaintiff, but did not execute any document of assignment, the plaintiff is not entitled to institute the suit for realizing the produce of the bhag cultivation. A transfer of an actionable claim can, no doubt, be made only by written instrument, but, in my opinion, this question does not arise in the present case. In this case the parties are residents of Purulia and are governed by the Dayabhag law or Hindu Law. On the death of Rabi Mahto his widow inherited his property as a widows estate and on her death! the plaintiff, as the next reversionary heir, was entitled to possession of the estate of Rabi Mahato and to receive its income and produce either by the suit or by private arrangement. On the death of Rabi Mahto his widow inherited his property as a widows estate and on her death! the plaintiff, as the next reversionary heir, was entitled to possession of the estate of Rabi Mahato and to receive its income and produce either by the suit or by private arrangement. Bhaimani haying married in sanga form caused her Civil death so far as the inheritance of Rabi Mahton was concerned, and on her remarriage it at once passed to the plaintiff as being his next reversionary heir. In that capacity the plaintiff was perfectly entitled to institute the suit for realizing the value of the produce of bhag cultivation from the defendant though the land was given to him by Bhaimani for the purpose of bhag cultivation. I may observe here that I do not find any discussion on this point in the judgment and probably it was rightly not raised before the Court below. 7. Thus there seems to be no merit in this application. In the result the application fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee : one gold mohur.