JUDGMENT

Sanderson, C.J. - This was a suit brought by the Plaintiff asking that it might be adjudicated that the disputed lands formed part of the guzasta lands of the Plaintiff, that after the death of the Plaintiff's mother and after the expiry of the term of the pottah granted by her the Plaintiff was entitled to possession, and also asking for a declaration that the proceedings taken at the time of revision of the settlement were not binding on the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff was no party to the same and that the said proceedings were ultra vires and illegal. The Plaintiff claimed to hold the lands as an occupancy raiyat, the land consisting of some 25 bighas. The Plaintiff's mother appears to have given a lease of the land for seven years and the mother died before the expiry of the lease. The lease was granted to the first Defendant Whose use name was Earn Naresh Ojha. The Plaintiff alleged that finding Earn Naresh Ojha in possession on her mother's death she allowed him to remain in possession of the land until the termination of the period for which the lease had originally been granted.

2. The Defendants in this case consist of 25 persons and they may be divided into six groups : The first group consisting of Defendants Nos. 1, to 6 was constituted by the family of Bam Naresh; the other 20 may be divided into five groups, all the people being connected in some way or other by relationship with the first group, Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. It appears that the 26 Defendants had succeeded in getting their names recorded in the record-of-rights as being in possession of the 25 bighas and as kashtkars, and also in having the record made to the effect that the Plaintiff was a tenure-holder.

3. The Plaintiff alleged that this record was not binding upon her, that it had been made in collusion with the husband of the Plaintiff who was a man not capable of understanding business.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 set up the defence that they were not in possession of the 25 bighas but that they were in possession of five bighas only; that they had entered into possession of these five bighas not under the lease to which I have referred but that these five bighas were part of the ancestral property of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6; that it was not part of the guzasta land of the Plaintiff but that it was part of the maurasi guzasta land of these Defendants; that the Plaintiff was in truth and fact a tenure-holder; and they further alleged that they, Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, had many lands in the mouzah in question having transferable right; that they were settled raiyats in the mouzah and that consequently these Defendants had acquired an occupancy and guzastadari right.

5. The other Defendants set up similar defences with regard to the other 20 bighas. It was alleged that these 20 bighas spilt up into five plots of four bighas each It. Just in the same way as the first group of Defendants had alleged, they alleged that they had not come into possession of these lands under the pottah or under the first group of Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, but that these 20 bighas were part of the ancestral lands of these Defendants Nos. 7 to 26; that the Plaintiff was a tenure-holder; and that these lands were part of the guzasta lands of the Defendants.

6. The issues which arc material to this appeal were the third and fourth issues as stated in the judgment of the learned District Judge. The third issue was, what was the status of the Plaintiff in the disputed lands : and the fourth was, what was the status of the Defendants in the same.

7. As regards Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, their case, as I have stated, was that five bighas of the 25 bighas were held by them under their ancient raiyati title; and they asserted that the Plaintiff had a mokurari interest of the nature of a tenure.

8. The Plaintiff on the other hand alleged that she had no tenure interest, that she was in possession as a raiyat.

9. That issue was found against the Plaintiff, and the District Judge held that h