Judgement

Appeal (No. 151 of 1920) from a judgment and decree (December 22, 1916) of the High Court affirming a decree of the District Judge at Ahmedabad, which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad.

The suit was brought by the appellant to recover possession of certain lands from the respondents as yearly tenants whose interest had been determined by notice. The respondents by their written statement alleged that they were in possession under a permanent lease. The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The District Judge, reversing the trial Judge, dismissed the suit, holding that a permanent lease existed. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the matter to be decided was not a question of law, and was not properly the subject of a second appeal.

1921. Dec. 2, 5. Upjohn K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the appellants. On its true construction the document of February 22, 1824, created only a tenancy from year to year; it cannot be construed as a

Law Rep. 49 Ind. App. 54 ( 1921- 1922) Bawa Magniram Sitaram V. Kasturbhai Manibhai

330

permanent lease Bilasmoni Dasi v. Sheo Per shad Singh (( 1882) L. R. 91. A. 33.); Toolshi Pe