Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is an appeal arising out of a unit for recovery of damages for misappropriation of crops. Ram Ghulam was an occupancy tenant. He died a long time ago leaving a son, Mangru. He died leaving a widow, Musammat Tapesara, who remained in possession of the occupancy holding. The defendant Rameshwar was a sub-tenant of Musammat Tapesara. In 1915 the defendant Rameshwar acquired a frantion of the Zamindari share also. Tapesara sued to eject Rameshwar as her sub-tenant and he pleaded proprietary title. The Revenue Court referred the defendant, Rameshwar, to the Civil Court for a declaration of his title. On the 15th of January 1917 the Civil Court held that Rameshwar was only a sab-tenant. On the 21st of March 1917 the Revenue Court accordingly ordered his ejectment. On the 22nd of May 1917, when Rameshwar's crops were standing on the fields, formal possession was delivered to the lady. She on the 5th of September 1917 executed a permanent lease of the plot to the plaintiff. So far the facts are not disputed. The plaintiff alleges that after the cane crop had been cut, (according to the finding of the Court below the cane was ready in February or March 1918) the defendant left the fields and then the plaintiff sowed kodo, paddy and other food grain in 1325 Fasli, but the defendant interfered with 3 the plaintiff's possession. There were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, on the 27th of October 1918, the Criminal Court gave its decision against the plaintiff and the defendant then misappropriated the crops sown by the plaintiff. The present suit was brought on the 17th of January 1919 for recovery of damages. The defense raised was that Tapesara being an occupancy tenant the lease of the 5th of September 1917 executed by her in favour of the plaintiff was invalid and the plaintiff had no right of suit. Another plea was that Section 79 of the Tenancy Act applied and that the suit was barred by limitation because the defendant as a Zamindar had taken wrongful possession two years ago. The First Court same to the conclusion that the defendant was not only formally dispossessed but that after reaping the sugar-sane crop he did not actually retain possession and that the plaintiff got possession in Baisakh 1325, Fasli. It decreed the claim for Rs. 70. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court suits to the conclusion that the crops in dispute were sown by the plaintiff. He did not decide the question of the invalidity or otherwise of the lease, but confirmed the decree on the ground that Rameshwar was bound to pay the price of the crops which had been misappropriated either to Tapesara or to the plaintiff who had sown the srops. The defendant, Rameshwar, comes here in second appeal and his learned Vakil contends that the lease in favour of the plaintiff being void ab initio the plaintiff-respondent had no right to maintain the suit. He further contends that Section 79 applies and the suit is barred by time. As to the last two contentions I need only say that it has been found as between the defendant and Musammat Tapesara that the appellant has not acquired the status of the Zamindar simply because of his purchase of a fractional share in the village. The defendant cannot now claim the privileges of a Zamindar as against the plaintiff who claims through Musammat Tapesara, As to the first plea raised, I find it to ba a diffarant ooa. Under the Tenancy Act, Tapesara could not have transferred her occupancy holding. The result was that under the law the plaintiff was a trespasser, but then comes the next question, and it is, who could evict him from such possession as a trespasser. He had a possessory right good against all the world except the true owner, that is, the body of Zamindars, and the appellant who is not a member of such body could not foroibly cast him from possession without being liable for damages.
2. I had commenced to dictate this judgment yesterday when Mr. Haribans Sahai asked ma to allow him an opportunity for further argument. Ha is Dot here to-day. On the findings at which I have arrived, the plaintiff respond end was entitled to a decree and the Courts below have rightly decreed the claim for damages. The defence appears to be an absolutely dishonest one. The defendant-appellant has got his mortgage money with interest at Rs. 0-14 0 per cant, per mensem from the date fixed for redemption in the decree. He now wants to take the profits also which he was in no way entitled to get. The lower Court Bee an to have rightly decreed the plaintiff's claim. I confirm the decree of the Court below and dismiss this appeal with costs.