The use of the expression "bemiadi" in a lease does not necessarily negate the permanence of the tenancy; the question of whether a bemiadi patta created a permanent lease or not must be determined after a consideration of all the provisions of the lease and the circumstances in which and the purpose for which it was granted.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. These two appears are by the same person, but against different respondents; and as a common point of law arises in both the appeals they have been neard together at the instance of both the parties.

2. These two appeals, which are by the same plaintiff, arise out of the two suits in a judgment. The plaintiff is the present proprietor of the estate, known as Tori Estate, within, which lies the village in suit. This estate during the life time of the father of the present plaintiff, who was the previous proprietor, was taken over for management under the provisions of the Chotanagpore Encumbered Estates Act in the year 1901. The estate was released on 4-11-1909, but was again taken over, in the life time of the previous proprietor himself, on 5-1-1944, and since then the estate is under the management of Chotanagpore Encumbered Estates. The two suits were filed on behalf of the plaintiff through the Manager of the Chotanagpore Encumbered Estates, and the present appeals have also be,en filed through the General Manager of the above estate on behalf of the plaintiff,

3. In P. A. 508 of 1947, which arises out of Title Suit 5/12 of 1946/1947, and which has been argued first, the disputed land was given in lease by the father of the present plaintiff under a registered document on 9-12-1917 under a Bemiadi lease, on an annual rental of Rs. 137/13/- in cash and Rs. 4/8/- as price of two goats, besides cess, to the father of defendants 1 and 2. In F. A. 507 of 1947, which arises out of Title Suit No. 9/6 of 1945/1947, the lease was granted on 8-7-1917 to the father of the defendants of that suit, on the same terms, by the father of the, present plaintiff on an annual rental of Rs. 151, besides cess, and one he-goat worth Rs. 2/4/- and five seers of Ghee worth Rs. 5/-. Both the leases were marked Ex. A in the respective suits. The defendants in the two suits are different persons. Both the suits were tried separately, but by the same Additional Subordinate Judge. In both the cases the premium taken by the plaintiffs father for granting the respective leases was Rs. 1,500/-.

4. In both the suits the plaintiff sought eviction of the defendants on a declaration that the Bemiadi deeds, referred to above, by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants father was hit by the provisions of Sec.12A, Chotanagpore Encumbered Estates Act, and as such they were illegal and void, and consequently the defendants in each suit were trespassers at least from the time of the notices to quit, which were served on them on behalf of the plaintiff. In F. A. 508 of 1947 the first notice to quit Was given to the defendants on 19-9-1941, and the second notice to quit was given on 12-9-1944, and the suit for ejectment was brought on 17-1-1946. IB F. A. No. 507 of 1947 the first notice to quit was given to the defendants on 19-6-1941, and the second notice to quit was given on 15-9-11944, and the suit for ejectment was brought on 11-5-1945.

5. The defence in both the suits was tbat the provisions of Sec.12A, Chotanagpore Encumbered Estates Act, did not apply, and the lease in question in each suit was a permanent lease, and the suits were barred by adverse possession and acquiescence.

6. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge of palamau, who heard both the suits, dismissed both the suits, under separate judgments, holding that the lease granted by the proprietor in each suit was perfectly valid, inasmuch as he was under no legal disability in executing the same, and, that it was a permanet lease, and. therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to eject the defendants. He further held that the question of the defendants , title by adverse possession did not arise in view of his finding that the leases were permanent leases. But even if it be held that the leases were void, then the plaintiffs suits were barred by adverse possession of the defendants, who were openly in possession of the leasehold property for more t