JUDGMENT

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. - (March, 15th 1917.)--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 pattah 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.

2. 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 tease 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 name was Ram Naresh Ojha. The plaintiff alleged that finding Ram 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.

3. The defendants in this case consist of 26 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 Ram 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 kaasht fears and also in having the record made to the effect that the plaintiff was a tenure-holder.

4. 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.

5. 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 5 bighas only; that they had entered into possession of these 5 bighas not under the lease to which I have referred but that these 5 bighas were part of the ancestral property of defendants Nos. 1 to 6; that it was not part of the guzasta land of the plaintiff but that it was part of the mourusi 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 Monzah and that consequently these defendants had acquired an occupancy and guzsastadari right.

6. The other defendants set up similar defences with regard to the other 20 bighas. It was alleged that these 20 bighas were split up into five plots of 4 bighas each. 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 pattah 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.

7. The issues which are material to this appeal were the third and fourth issues as stated in the judgment of the learned District Judge. The third issun 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.

8. As regards defendants Nos. 1 to 6, their case, as I have stated, was that 5 bighas of the 25 bighas were held by them under their ancient raiyati title; and they asserted that the plaintiff had a mokurrari interest of the nature of a tenure. 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 Distric