This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court upholding the same in first appeal.

2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, as the respondents claimed to be the tenants of the land in dispute and denied to be sub-tenants under the plaintiff they should be deemed liable to ejectment. A reference has been made to sec. III (g) (ii) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that a lease of immovable property determines in case the lessee renounces his character as such by claiming title in himself. Much need not be said on the point. In the first place as laid down in sec. 117 of the said Act, these provisions are not applicable to leases for agricultural purposes. Secondly the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has clearly stated before us that now the respondents do not claim for themselves any other status but that of sub-tenants under the plaintiff who is tenant of the land in dispute. On going through the written statement filed in the trial court by the respondents we find that thei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document