JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court in the year 1910 or 1910, in winch the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were her tenants and she sought to eject them for non-payment of rent. In that case the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had given them the property. The Assistant Collector held that the story told by the defendants was correct, inanely, that the plaintiff having no issue of her own brought them from their village arid established them on the property, promising that they should have the property now in suit. Having found that thesis were tins true facts he concludes by saying, under these circumstances I find the defendants are rent-free holders of the land in suit, which was given to them in gift by the plaintiff". The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner (not to the District Judge). The Commissioner held m effect exactly the same as the Assistant Collector had held. Meanwhile a second suit had been brought by the plaintiff for rent, also in the Revenue Court, This suit has been dismissed as being a matter which was already decided in the suit to which we have already referred. T