JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff of the Court of first instance is the appellant before us. He brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on the allegation that he had let out the plots detailed in the plaint to defendant 1, that defendant 1 was ejected through the revenue Court from those plots, but with his help the two other defendants who were his son and nephew, occupied the lands. The plaintiff accordingly sued for recovery of possession.

2. Defendants 2 and 3 did not contest the suit. Defendant 1 alone appeared. He said that he was a cosharer in the village and therefore he was not liable to be ejected u/s 44, Agra Tenancy Act 1926, under which section the plaintiff purported to institute the suit.

3. The Court of first instance held that the defendant were trespassers in respect of certain plots but were cosharers in two khewats, viz-, Nos. 50 and 51. In the result, the learned Assistant Collector decreed the suit in respect of lands situated in khewats other than Nos. 50 and 51 and dismissed the suit in respect of lands which are situated in khewats 50 and 51.

4. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and his appeal was dismissed.

5. In this Court the plaintiff contends that h