Exclusive possession coupled with an interest in the property creates a lease, not a license.

Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 14-11-1990 passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the appeal of the respondents-defendants was accepted and the decree and judgment dated 28-12-1985 of Sub-Judge (II), Hamirpur was set aside. The Sub-Judge had decreed the suit of the original appellant-plaintiff Smt, Krodhu for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land in dispute and also for possession thereof. The land dispute comprises land measuring 3 Kanals 1 Maria situated in Tika Hatli, Tappa Galore, 2 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Lehra Tappa Galore, as detailed in the hearing of the plaint. Smt Krodhu had died during the pendency of the appeal and Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Gian Chand has been substituted in her place as her legal representative.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute that Smt. Krodhu was the owner of the land in dispute and she had given it to Jai Ram, predecessor in interest of the respondents, for cultivation vide agreement dated 4-3-1954. As per the agreement Jai Ram was to provide maintenance to Spit, Krodhu in the shape of 9 Maunds (Kacha) of Maize and 9 Maunds (Kacha) of Wheat for Kharif and Rabi crops of the year and 40 Bundles of Tanda and 4 Maunds (Kacha) of Wheat Bhusa per year. She was also entitled to cut grass from the land in dispute, if she kept a Buffalo. In case she did not keep any buffalo, Jai Ram was entitled to cut the grass but he was to give 18 Maunds of Corn and 40 Bundles of Tanda and 4 Maunds of Wheat Bhusa per year in lieu thereof to her. One of the stipulations in the agreement was that even if there was no crop in the land, Jai Ram was bound to pay the maintenance in kind as agreed between him and Smt Krodhu. Jai Ram failed to pay the maintenance as per agreement and Smt. Krodhu was compelled to file a number of Civil suit for the recovery thereof which were decreed but her prayer for possession of the land in dispute was rejected. Jai Ram died on 25-11-1975 which gave a cause of action to Smt, Krodhu to initiate the present litigation on the ground that the agreement dated 4-3-1954 stood abrogated with the death of Jai Ram and in the absence of any agreement with the respondents-defendants, they have no right, title and interest to continue in possession of the land in dispute. In their written statement, the respondents-defendants took number of preliminary objections, including that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata as similar suits for possession of the land in dispute were filed against Jai Ram, their predecessor-in-interest. On merits, their stand was that Jai Ram was tenant of the land in dispute on payment of rent and on his death on 25-11-1975, they have inherited his tenancy rights and are continuing in possession of the land in dispute as tenants on the same terms and conditions as incorporated in the agreement dated 4-3-1954.

3. On the construction of the agreement dated 4-3-1954, the trial Court has held that Jai Ram was only holding licence of the land in dispute which stood terminated on his death and the respondents-defendants cannot claim any right, title and interest in the land in dispute as his legal heirs. The District Judge has reversed these findings. On the interpretation of various stipulations of the Agreement dated 4-3-1954, it has been held that Jai Ram was tenant-at-will of the land in dispute on payment of rent and his tenancy lights were inherited by the respondents-defendants on his death on 25-11-1975 and the suit of Smt. Krodhu was dismissed. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record The only substantial question of law arising in the present appeal is whether on the construction of the Agreement dated 4-3-1954, Jai Ram was licensee or lessee of the land in dispute,. For deciding this question, the distinction between lease and licence