SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- A learned Single Judge has referred the following two questions of law to a larger Bench :

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the possession of Jagan from the date of the transfer of occupancy tenancy in his favour would be permissible on behalf of the transferor or adverse to his interests?

2. In case the possession of the original transferee was permissive in its nature will the possession of his heirs subsequent to his death continue to be permissive or will it become adverse to the rights of the original transferor?"

2. The writ petition in which the reference has been made arose out of a suit for ejectment and possession under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by the respondents. The plaintiff respondents claimed to be occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute. On 18th Octobar, 1948 they executed a deed of sale of their rights in the plots in dispute in favour of one Jagan, the father of the petitioners. The plaintiff-respondents' case was that the sale of occupancy being prohibited by law the sale was illegal, but nonetheless the possession of the transferees was permissive and as a licensee. The licence having been revoked, the transferees were no longer entitled to remain in possession. The present suit was instituted against the sons of Jagan after his death, in 1956.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On, appeal it was, however, decreed. The appellate decree was affirmed by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Chidda v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1968 RD 205 and has held that the sale was illegal because the transfer of occupancy tenancy was prohibited, yet the possession of the transferees amounted to a permissive possession and on behalf of the transferor or tenants. Their possession being as licensees, the said licence stood revoked by the institution of the suit and consequently the transferees were trespassers after the revocation of the licence.

4. At the hearing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on a certain decision of the Supreme Court which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge cast doubt on the validity of the view taken in Chidda's case, 1968 RD 205. He consequently referred the two questions mentioned above to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has come up before this Bench.

5. In Chidda's case, 1968 RD 205 a tenant co-opted Chidda as a co-tenant. Shortly thereafter he executed a sale deed in favour of Chidda transferring his remaining interest in the tenancy plots. On these facts the learned Judge held :

"It will be seen that the petitioners entered into possession, if at all, with the permission of the landlord Chandrika Prasad and Kunwar Sen, the tenant-in-chief in the year 1948 under a written agreement. The petitioner's possession over the other half of the tenancy was by reason of the fact that he purported to have purchased the same from Kunwar Sen under a sale-deed. Mr. Kazmi has not been able to cite any authority before me to show as to how in these circumstances the possession of his client could be said to be adverse."

The learned Judge proceeded to hold :

"Ordinarily when a person enters into possession under an instrument of transfer which is subsequently found to be invalid, then the title remains with the transferor, even though the possession might be of the transferee, but such a possession would in law be a permissive possession being on behalf of the transferor. It cannot be said to be adverse to the transferor."

In our opinion this decision does not lay down the law correctly. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 469. The Court observed :

"......... the position of the respondent Corporation and its predecessor in title was that of a person having no leg