GOL DAJI HATHI Vs. DOD LAXMAN KURSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are somewhat complicated. ,But for the purposes of this second appeal the facts which emerge are these.

(2.) The plaintiffs are now and at the date of the suit were the owners of the land in suit. They sued to eject the defendants. Out of the defendants those with whom we are concerned are defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who are in occupation of the land. They claimed to be there as permanent tenants. They appear to have been or they pretended to be uncertain as to who was their landlord, but that uncertainty is now removed. If they are tenants, their landlords are the plaintiffs. They claimed .that they were permanent tenants, and this fact certainly emerges, that they are either permanent tenants or annual tenants, and in either event they are entitled to notice.

(3.) The trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy had not been legally determined by proper notice and dismissed the suit.