JUDGMENT

Rafique, J. - The two appeals Nos. 1135 and 1529 of 1913 arise out of a suit brought by Musammat Gomti Kuar against Jugal Kishore. It appears that one Mulchand was a co-sharer in the villages of Mehdi, Husanpur and Dinarpur. He died some time ago leaving him surviving his widow called Musammat Plaunda and a daughter 'named Musammat Dhanwanti. Musammat Plaunda remained in possession of her husband's property up to her death. On her death Musammat Dhanwanti entered in possession and remained in possession till her death in 1907. After her death Khader Mal and Shama Charan succeeded to the estate of Mulchand as his reversioners. They executed a deed of sale in favour of Beni Lal and Ramcharan Lal in respect of the estate of Mulchand. On the 27th of March 1911 the purchasers instituted the suit out of which these two appeals have arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Aoula Faridpur against Jugal Kishore. It was alleged in the plaint that Jugal Kishore used to realize rents of Mehdi, Hasanpur and Dinarpur on behalf of Musammat Dhanwanti and that during the time that he was acting for her, he without her knowledge and without any right got his name entered in respect of 25 bighas 8 biswas of land. But inspite of that entry Musammat Dhanwanti remained in possession of the land until her death. In April 1907 the plaintiffs, after the purchase of the interests of Khader Mal and Shama Charan got possession of the estate of Mulchand in Mehdi, Hasanpur and Dinarpur, including the land in question. The defendant subsequently interfered with the plaintiffs' title and possession by taking fruit from some of the trees of the groves situate on the land in suit and by instigating some of the tenants not to pay rent to the plaintiffs. The latter, therefore, claimed two reliefs, viz., (1) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the title and the possession of the plaintiffs and (2) if the acts of the defendant mentioned above be considered to amount to dispossession of the plaintiffs, then a decree for possession of the land in suit by the ejectment of the defendant. Jugal Kishore contested the suit on various grounds. He denied that the land in suit was sold by the, reversioners to the plaintiffs or that the latter had ever been in possession of it He said that the grove No. 2036 belonged to him and that ho had been in possession of it for a number of years. As to the other grove he said that ho had planted it with the permission of Musammat Dhanwanti and Musammat Mohan Kuar, another co-sharer. He pleaded that he was a tenant grove-holder and hence the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit Musammat Gomti Kuar filed an application stating that she was the real purchaser and that Beni Lal and Ramcharan Lal were benamidars. She was accordingly brought on the record as plaintiff. The learned Munsif found that the land in suit was given by Musammat Dhanwanti to her husband Ram Prasad, and his nephew, Jugal Kishore, at different times for the planting of groves and that two groves were planted on it by thorn. The grant by her of the land in suit could not be questioned as the planting of groves improved the property. The plaintiff or her vendors never having obtained possession over the' groves or the land, the acts of the defendant referred to in the plaint could not amount to the dispossession of the plaintiff. The latter was not, therefore, entitled to either of the two reliefs asked by her. The claim was accordingly dismissed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the Munsif. He held that Musammat Dhanwanti Kuar having a life-estate only could not deal with the property so as to effect adversely the rights of the reversioners. She had reserved no rent on the land given to the defendant and his uncle for planting of the groves and hence the reversioners' rights were injuriously affected. The finding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action for recovery