Belonged to him T.P. Act, Section 116(g) Now to revert to paragraph 2, 5 and 8 which the learned Judges considered amounted to a clear and unequivocal denial of the Government's title, they referred in para 2 to the words "belonging to me" as constituting a disclaimer of the tenancy and a repudiation of the landlord's title. We do not agree that this is the only or proper construction which the words are capable of bearing. Though the word "belonging" no doubt is capable of denoting an absolute title, is nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense. Even possession of an interest less than that of full ownership could be signified by that word. In Webster "belong to" is explained as meaning inter alia "to be owned by, be the possession of". The precise sense which the word was meant to convey can therefore be gathered only by reading the document as a whole and adverting to the context in which it occurs. In Prag Narain v. Kadir Bakhsh, ILR 35 All 145 a tenant effected a mortgage of the premises including the land which he held on lease and on which he had constructed buildings and in the mortgage deed employed the following words to describe the property mortgaged "house with the lands which belong to me". The landlord of the site claimed that this amounted to a denial of his title. The Court, however, held that the words were not unambiguous and as the denial was not unequivocal it did not entail a forfeiture. In the case before us there had been a bunglow constructed on the property and learned Counsel for the respondent conceded that if that bunglow were in existence and the property had been referred to as 'my bunglow' or 'bunglow belonging to me' it would not be a disclaimer or rather the denial would not be unequivocal but he urged that if the same terms were used in respect not of the super-structure and the land together but of site alone on which the super-structure stood, the interpretation of the assertion would be different. It is in this context that the circumstances of the tenancy become material for determining the nature of the assertion made. Here was a tenancy whose origin was not definitely known. The lessee had constructed super-structures and the appellant and his ancestors had been in enjoyment of the property for over three quarters of a century. There had been transfers effected of the property and the same had been the subject of inheritance. There had been a document in which there had been a public assertion that though it was Government land for which a nominal rent was payable, they had "a permanent heritable and transferable right". Notwithstanding enjoyment of this nature with public assertions of the type, when the property was sought to be enjoyed by sub-leasing it to others for construction of houses the municipality had come in and asserted rights in denial of these claims. It is with that background that one has to judge as to whether when the tenant stated that the land "belonged to him" he was asserting merely the substantial disclaiming the reversionary interests of Government or its right to demand and receive a fixed rent in respect of the property. We consider that the words employed did not, in the circumstances, amount to a disclaimer or a renunciation of the tenancy. (Mohd Amir v. Muncl. Board Sitapur, AIR 1965 SC 1923 (1929,1930)