MATHRA PURI Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the only question that has been debated before me is covered by issue No. 5 which is in these terms:

(2.) MR. Jagan Nath Kaushal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, has rightly not contested the finding of the learned District Judge that the defendants are not proved to be the tenants of the plaintiffs. He has only confined his argument to the second contention that was raised before the learned District Judge. his contention is that the redemption of the mortgage does not put an end to the defendants who were inducted on the land by the mortgagee because the tenancy is an agricultural tenancy. In this connection the relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Asa Ram v. Mst. Ram Kali, AIR 1958 SC 183, wherein their Lordships made the following observations

(3.) APPEAL dismissed.