Kinkhede—This 2nd appeal raises a question of the interpretation of a statute. A brief statement of the facts is necessary. One Girdhari held the land in suit as occupancy tenant under the plaintiff-respondent. He died issueless and was succeeded by his widow. On her death his holding was taken up by his sister Mt. Sita who was recognized by the landlord as the tenant of the land in suit. It is common ground that the tenancy right was personal property or stridhan in her hands. On her death the defendants who are proved to be her husband's sagotra sapindas within seven degrees of kindred to him took possession of her lands. The plaintiff as the landlord of the holding sues to eject them as trespasser on the ground that the tenancy lapsed to him for want of heirs and that the defendants are not collateral heirs of his tenant Mt. Sita within the meaning of Section 11, proviso (ii) of the new C.P. Tenancy Act of 1920.

2. The first Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenancy did not lapse but legally devolved on the defendants. On appeal by plaintiff the lower appellate Court reversed the decision and granted a decree for possession, in the view that though defendants were