(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to an occupancy-holding which belonged to Sital and devolved on his death, on his widow, Musammat Bundao. Musammat Bundao died in 1318 Fasli. She left a daughter, Musammat Munni, who had a son Mahadeo, Mahadeo died in 1320 Fasli leaving two sons who are the present plaintiffs-respondents.
(2.) The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were minors when Mahadeo died and that their mother Musammat Phul Jhari asked the defendant to manage the cultivation on their behalf. Their complaint was that the defendant was not giving to them an account of the profits. The suit was accordingly brought for possession of the said occupancy holding with mesne profits from 1320 Fasli to 1326 Fasli.
(3.) The Trial Court dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiffs had no title, because their father, Mahadeo, was not joint in cultivation with Musammat Bundao and Sital and had not acquired any right to succeed to the occupancy holding of Sital or, Musammat Bundao under Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act, II of 1901. It also held that the defendant, who was a distant cousin of Sital, was a sharer in cultivation with Mussammat Bundao in her life-time. The lower Appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that the rights of Sital lapsed on his death, which took place when Act X of 1859 was in force, that after his death Musammat Bundao acquired occupancy rights in herself by virtue of long occupation and that Mahadeo was joint in cultivation with her and became entitled to the occupancy holding on her death under Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act, II of 1901. In regard to the defendant it was of opinion that he managed the cultivation during the life-time of Musammat Bundao and had acquired no right by virtue of Such management. There was a further finding that the plaintiffs had not been out of possession for more than 12 years and that the claim was not barred by limitation. The claim of the plaintiffs for possession of the occupancy holding was accordingly decreed.