Randhir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain plots of land on the allegations that the Plaintiff was the tenant of the plots in dispute and the Defendants were in wrongful possession.
(2.) IT appears that one Nakchhed was the original tenant of the plots in dispute and on his death, the tenancy passed to one Bhagwati. During the life time of Bhagwati a patta was executed by the zamindar in favour of the present Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then filed a suit for the possession of the plots but it was dismissed on the ground that the lease executed by the zamindar in the presence of the tenant holding the land was invalid and could not be given effect to. Bhagwati, however, died shortly after and a second suit was instituted by the Plaintiff on the allegation that Bhagwati having died without an heir, the land reverted to the zamindar and the patta granted by the zamindar earlier in favour of the Plaintiff became good. This second suit was contested by the Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a tenant and that he was not entitled to eject the Defendants. As a question of tenant's right was involved, an issue for a finding. The revenue court held that the patta did not become good even after the death of Bhagwati and the Plaintiff had not, therefore, become the tenant. On receipt of this finding, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff then went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the lease became a good lease on the death of Bhagwati and as such on the principle of "feeding the estoppel" the Plaintiff became a tenant of the land in dispute. The appeal was allowed and the claim for possession was decreed. The Defendants have now come up in second appeal. At first it was contended that the lower appellate court was not entitled to hold that Bhagwati had died without an heir in the absence of a definite issue on that point. this Court, therefore, framed an issue as follows and referred it for a finding to the trial court:Did Bhagwati leave any heirs entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights inherited by Bhagwati from Nakchhed and is this heir alive?
(3.) THE finding, which has been received from the trial court, is that Bhagwati has left no heir. The finding has, however, been challenged by the Appellants. It is contended that the learned Assistant Collector, who has given the finding, has not appraised the evidence correctly. It appears that some six witnesses were examined on behalf of the Appellants and three on behalf of the Respondent. One Sarjudei was said to be a daughter of Bhagwati and Sarjudei's son was said to be entitled to succeed to the tenancy of Bhagwati. The contention on behalf of the Plaintiff -Respondent was that this Srimati Sarjudei was the daughter of Jagmohan and not of Bhagwati. I have been taken through the evidence produced before the learned Assistant Collector and it appears to me that the view taken by him was correct. Of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants, three happened to be closely interested in Sarjudei and the evidence of the other three witnesses was also not convincing. The learned Assistant Collector had the advantage of hearing the evidence and his appraisal of the value of the oral evidence should be taken as correct unless there are any good reasons for rejecting it. No such reasons have been shown in the present case and I, therefore, accept the finding arrived at on the issue remitted to the trial court. The result is that Bhagwati died without leaving an heir to succeed to his tenancy and as such the land reverted to the zamindar.;