R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff. He claims to be a permanent mokanrari tenant of a plot of coal land as also the surface land measuring 169 bighas described in Schedule A of the plaint. The dispute in the present litigation is with respect to portions of the aforesaid 169 bighas described in Schedules B and C of the plaint. Schedule B is a strip of land measuring about 600 feet long from north to south and about 15 feet wide from cast to west. According to the plaintiff it is his private road over and through which the defendants plied their coal from their coal area called Khas Mahatadih Colliery lying to the north of the plaintiffs Col-liery. Schedule C land measures about 200 feet north to south and 200 feet east to west, and according to the plaintiff the defendants coal was stacked over the same. The plaintiffs case is that at the request of the defendants, the plaintiff permitted them to occupy the disputed lands on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 15 to Rs. 60 which was actually paid to the plaintiff by the de fendants up to January, 1950. As the plaintiff required the suit land for his own purposes, he sent on the 13th of March, 1950, a notice to the defendant to vacate the same by the 31st of March, 1950. This notice was admittedly served on the defendants on the 15th of March, 1950, but they did not vacate the lands. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit out of which the present appeal arises for a decree for Khas possession over the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents permanently from plying their carts and coal trucks and their coal from their colliery over and through the said lands. A prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 120.00 as rent and for a sum of Rs. 420.00 as damages was also made. He also prayed for a direction to the defendants to remove all coal, and refuge matters stacked on the suit lands.

2. The suit was contested by all the defendants who filed a joint written statement. Their pleas, which are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, were (1) that the plaintiff was not the owner of the surface land, (2) that the defen-dants were in occupation of Schedule C land from a long time, but as the plain!iff misrepresented to them that he was the owner of that land and threatened them with legal action, they agreed to pay rent to him for the same and actually paid rent, (3) that on the 16th of March, 1950, one Lakshminarain Pande and his co-sharers, who claimed to be the tenure-holders of the said land, sent a notice to them which they received on the 20th of March, 1950, calling upon them either to vacate the same or to take settlement of the same from them, and, consequently on the 1st of May, 1950, they took settlement from. Lakshminarain Pande and his co-sharers of the land covered by Schedule C of the plaint and (4) that Schedule, B land is a public highway. They also pleaded that the notice to quit, given by the plaintiff, was not valid and that he was not entitled to any rent or damages.

3. The Munsif, who tried the suit, held that the plaintiff had title over the surface land in regard to the lands in suit, that the defendants were estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff, that the defendants were licensees and that, though no notice was necessary to be served, the same had been validly served on the defendants. He, accordingly, decreed the suit for all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.

4. On appeal by the defendants the learned Subordinate Judge, by a very lengthy, but most unintelligible judgment, reversed the decree passed by the Munsif and dismissed the suit. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is very unsatis-factory, and one has to search in vain as to what his findings are. It is not possible to ascertain easily whether a particular passage in his judgment is his finding on a particular point or it is merely a note of arguments advanced by the parties.

His findings, however, may be