JUDGMENT

George Knox, J. - The facts of the case out of which this appeal arose are stated very clearly in the elaborate and well-reasoned judgment of the learned District Judge. I need not detail them. It is sufficient to note the points put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellants. These points are that the contents of the kabuliyat dated the 4th of September 1879 are not admissible in evidence, that even if they are admissible in evidence they do not prove that Bishesar Singh was a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent and that in any circumstance after the expiration of the term fixed by the kabuliyat, Bishesar Singh and his successors became trespassers whose adverse possession has ripened into full proprietorship after a lapse of more than twelve consecutive years. There was a fourth ground taken in appeal, but that was abandoned in argument. As to the admissibility in evidence of the contents of the kabuliyat the learned Counsel has taken me through a series of decisions of this Court with reference to this point. These are Nand Lal v. Hanuman Das 26 A. 368 : 1 A. L.J. 96 : A. W. N.(1904) 46 Gir v. Jogendro Nath Ghose 27 A. 136 : A. W. N. (1901) 189 : 1 A. L.J. 576. Sik