A person in possession of land without title has an interest in the property which is heritable and good against all the world excepting the true owner. This interest, unless the true owner interferes, is transferable.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the defendant, is against a decree of affirmance arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and ejectment of the defendant from the suit house, for recovery of arrear of rent of Rs. 150/- and compensation of Rs. 625/- with pendente lite and further interest.

( 2 ) PLOT No. 1828 measuring an area of 0. 08 acre under khata No. 788 in athgarh town is recorded as 'rasta' in the settlement record of rights, but in the remarks column thereof there is an entry to the effect that one Sk. Amir All is in forcible possession of the same by constructing a house thereon since 1938. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the house of 2 bakharas standing on a portion of that plot from Sk. Amir All by means of a registered sale deed dated 18-9-68 (Ext. 4) and took delivery of possession of the same. The defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the house under the said Sk. Amir All and after execution of the sale deed (Ext. 4) he attorned to the plaintiff. On 10-10-68 he paid a sum of Rs. 10 as arrear rent to the plaintiff and executed an agreement (Ext. 5) in her favour agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. But he did not pay the rent for the month of October, 1968 as per the terms of the agreement. As the plaintiff's husband wanted to open a medicine shop in the house in question he sent a notice (Ext. 13) to the defendant demanding arrears of rent from October, 1968 to February, 1969 and requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff, but the defendant refused to accept the 'notice. So the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 3 ) THE defence contention was that the suit plot belongs to the Government and that Sk. Amir Ali had no title to the same. It was alleged that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the suit land by virtue of her sale deed (Ext. 4) and that the defendant has been in possession of the same since 1956 after constructing a house thereon. He denied the allegations of attornment and execution of the agreement. He also alleged that the notice Ext. 13 was never tendered to him and that the State Government who was the real owner of the suit property having not been impleaded the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to the findings that Sk. Amir Ali had mere possessory right over the suit land which he transferred to the plaintiff under the sale deed ext. 4; that the defendant had failed to establish that he had purchased the suit house from Sk. Amir Ali; that the State Government was not a necessary party to the suit; that the notice Ext. 13 was valid and that it was duly served on the defendant; that the deed of agreement Ext. 5 was genuine and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff and was liable to eviction after termination of the tenancy. Accordingly he decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction and for realisation of the arrears of house rent from 1-10-68 but rejected the claim of compensation.

( 5 ) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred in the above findings. He however held that a tenancy had been created by the Government in favour of Sk. Amir Ali in respect of the suit plot by acceptance of rent under the rent receipt Ext. 3 and that Sk. Amir Ali had acquired valid title to the suit plot which he conveyed to the plaintiff under the sale deed Ext. 4. The above findings are assailed in this appeal as being contrary to facts and law.

( 6 ) IT appears that the rent receipt dated 16-10-68 (Ext. 3) was granted in favour of Sk. Amir Ali in respect of khata No. 786 whereas the suit plot appertains to khata No. 788. The learned Munsif noticed this discrepancy and on a discussion of the evidence came to hold in para 8 of his judgment that Sk. Amir Ali did not acquire sthitiban right over the suit property. This aspect of the finding was ov