K.Sahai, J.

1. These two appeals by the plaintiff, a company called Bastacolla Colliery Co". Ltd., arise out of two suits for ejectment of the principal defendants from certain lands situated in village Bastacolla and for issue of directions to those defendants to remove all structures and materials from the lands in suits within the time fixed by the Court. The appeals have been placed for disposal before this Bench owing to a conflict of decisions in this Court on two of the points involved in them. They have been heard together, and both are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. It is not disputed that New Beerbhum Coal Company Limited previously held the underground coal-mining rights and surface rights in the lands of the whole of village Bastacolla, with the exception of some culturable lands, as permanent lessees, nor is it disputed that the plaintiff company has acquired them from the New Beerbhum Coal Co. Ltd. It further appears that Ganpat Beldar (deceased), the husband of defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 150/14 of 1950/52, who has also since died, and Bandhu Beldar, the only principal defendant in Title Suit No. 151/17 of 1950/52, executed kabuliyats in the year 1.920 in respect of the lands in dispute in the two suits in favour of the New Beerbhum Coal Co. Ltd.; but the company did not execute any patta in their favour.

3. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs case in both the suits is that Ganpat and Bandhu verbally took lease of the lands in dispute for residential purposes in 1920, and that subsequent execution of kabuliyats by them did not legally create any permanent lease in their favour in the absence o£ pattas. Their names were later wrongly recorded in the survey khatian as raiyati kaimi tenants in respect of the lands in dispute in the two suits. The principal defendants (who will henceforth be referred to as the defendants) are, in fact, tenants" holding leases from month to month. The plaintiff gave them due notices to quit; but they have not vacated the lands.

4. The defence of the defendants in both the Suits may be briefly put. They allege that they took oral settlement of the lands in question for agricultural purposes, and have been in possession for about forty years, that they subsequently executed kabuliyats in favour of New Beerbhum Coal Co. Ltd., without reading and knowing their contents on account of fraud practised upon them and misrepresentations made to them by the employees of that company, that the survey entries were correctly made, that, in any case, they have acquired permanent tenancy rights by adverse possession, and that they have made permanent structures on the lands within the knowledge, and with the consent, of the plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest. It is also alleged by them that they have been paying rent for the lands in dispute all along.

5. The Munsif, who heard the suits, decreed them. The appeals by the defendants, however, succeeded, and the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad has dismissed the two suits. His findings are (1) that there was no oral settlement with the defendants about forty years ago, as alleged by them, (2) that no case of estoppel against the plaintiff had been made out by reason of the defendants having put up structures upon the lands in question, (3) that the kabuliyats executed by them in 1920 created valid and permanent leases in their favour, even though pattas were not executed by the lessor, (4) that the tenancies were created for residential purposes, (5) that, even if the kabuliyats did not create valid leases, the evidence on the record and the circumstances show that "the tenancies were permanent and heritable ones", and (6) that, even if that was not so, the defendants had "acquired limited rights by virtue of adverse possession for the statutory period". He has not indicated the nature of the limited rights which were, according to him, acquired by adverse possession.

6. Findings Nos. 1, 2 and 4, as I have numbered them, have not be