JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J.:—These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on February 13, 1970 in Second Appeals 67 and 68 of 1962.

2. Mahant Vishwa Nath Bharthi, the Sarbrahkar of the temple of Shankarji Maharaj, Khowja, gave lands belonging to the temple, admeasuring about 44 acres, on Thekd to one Sukai. The Thekanama was executed on June 5, 194 to be effective from July 1, 1942. The lease was to ensure for a period of 10 years and was due to expire on June 30, 1952. The Thekanama contained an express term that the Thekadar will not sub-let the leasehold property and that on the expiry of the period of lease he shall handover the possession of the property to the lessor.

3. In spite of this term against sub-letting, on July 27, 194 the lessee executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephews Haqiqullah and Ghani, apparently authorising them to cultivate the lands on his behalf. On the expiry of the period of lease the Mahant instituted a suit for ejectment of the lessee which was decreed on November 5, 1952.

4. The Mahant then filed an application for executing the decree but an objection was raised thereto by the respondents. Sanaullah and Fakhrul Hasan who are respectively the brother and cousin of Haqiqullah. They filed two separate applications objecting to the execution of the decree on the ground that they had been cultivating the lands for several years and that they were entitled to continue in possession as Sirdars. On June 2, 1954 the objection raised by the executing court which passed an order that the possession of the lands which on March 13, 1953 was given to the decree-holder in execution of the decree should be re-delivered to the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents were put back in possession in July, 1954.

5. The lessor then instituted two separate suits under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit filed against Fakhrul Hasan being No. 17 of 1954 and the one against Sanaullah being No. 20 of 1954. His case was that the lands were given on lease to Sukai on condition that he shall not sublet them, that a decree for possession was accordingly passed against Sukai on the expiry of the lease and that the respondents had got their names entered fraudulently in the names entered fraudulently in the revenue record as the cultivators of the lands.

6. Respondents took up various inconsistent pleas in answer to the suits. They contended that they were in possession of the lands with the consent of the original lessor, that they had become hereditary tenants and that they must be deemed to have become Adhivasis of the lands.

7. The learned Munsiff who tried the suits framed six issues, issue No. 2 being whether the respondents were Sirdars of the lands as alleged in paragraphs 17 and 18 of their written statements. This issue was referred to the revenue court for decision. The lessor having died during the pendency of 1487 those suits, the appellant was substituted in his place as the Mahant of the Math. The revenue court found in favour of the respondents and accepting that finding the trial Court dismissed the suits. In appeal, the District Court took the view that there was no justification for referring the particular issue to the revenue court and that the trial Court ought to have decided all the issues for itself. The District Court accordingly remanded the suit with a direction that the Munsiff should decide the suit afresh uninfluenced by the finding given by the revenue court. The trial court then assessed the evidence, held in favour of the respondents and dismissed both the suits by its judgment dated November 17, 1961.

8. The District Court reversed the findings of the trial Court in appeal and held that the appellant, being the Bhumidar of the lands, was entitled to recover possession thereof from the respondents. The appeals were accordingly allowed by the District Court by its judgment dated April 18, 1962.

9. The respondents filed