The partition of the village abadi into pattis under the Land Revenue Act meant that each patti had its own separate abadi, and tenants of one patti were not entitled to acquire abadi sites in another patti. The cessation of tenancy resulted in the automatic forfeiture of the right to occupy the house site, which then escheated to the landlord.

Kinkhede—It is an admitted fact that in the village of Utvad there is an imperfect partition into pattis. Even the abadi of the village has been partitioned and allocated to each patti. Plaintiff is the lambardar of patti 1, and the site in dispute forms part of the abadi allotted to that patti Defendant, no doubt, is a tenant of the village but not of patti 1. He owns land in patti 4 of which another person is the lambardar. One Bondru once held tenancy land in patti 1 but he ceased to be a tenant arid thereafter he sold the site of his house to defendant. The question, therefore, was whether defendant's purchase of the site was at all operative as against the plaintiff. Plaintiff's contention was that with the cessation of Bondru's tenancy his right to the house site ceased and therefore the sale by him to defendant was null and void and conveyed no right to the site and secondly that the defendant was not a person who was legally entitled to a house site in the abadi of patti 1, merely because he possessed land in a separate patti No. 4 of the village.

2. The first Court held that Bondru was not a tenant at the time of the sale of the site in dispute and that defendant was not entitled to purchase an abadi site in patti 1 and decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession. The lower appellate Court upheld the decision. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.

3. It is contended that the wording of Section 203, Land Ravenue Act, does not contemplate that where a mahal is subdivided into pattis, each patti is to be treated as a mahal, so as to, disentitle a tenant of one patti from acquiring abadi site in another patti. In this particular case even the abadi of the mahal has been divided into pattis. So that each patidar has his separate abadi for the tenants or agriculturists of his patti. Prima facie, therefore, the agriculturists or non-agriculturists of each patti have a separate provision made for their residence in the abadi of their own ipatfci and have no right to look to another patti or its abadi for residential quarters. Each patti must maintain its own complete autonomy and should have nothing to do with other patti, each being a self-contained patti. The various pattis have their separate lambardars and though in relation to the Government the liability of the pattidar for land revenue may not be separated, that liability is divided inter se and ha been or at any rate is capable of being apportioned between the pattidars inter se. This virtually makes each patti as compact as possible with its own proportionate liability for land revenue and its own tenants and agriculturists or non-agriculturists under its separate lambardar although technically it could not be called a mataal. For all practical purposes each patti enjoy all the privileges and amities which a mahal might enjoy except as against the Government. Under these circumstances I hold that the defendant who is a tenant of patti 4 was not entitled to force himself on the lambardar of patti 1, and he could not induct himself, either by means of the public auction or of the destbardar-nama taken from Bondru into tha abadi site of patti 1.

4. Moreover on the finding that Bondru had ceased to be a tenant before the sale, a finding which binds me in second appeal, his right to the house site became forfeited in favour of the landlord of the patti in which he held land and had no longer any transferable right to the house site he occupied. The cessation of tenancy works out an automatica forfeiture of the right to occupy the house site which at once escheats to the landlord. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Final Result : Dismissed