1. The plaintiff in the plaint alleged that the land was held by the defendants under an oral lease from year to year granted by the plaintiff in 1896, and that he gave the defendants notice to quit and surrender the land in March 1899. The suit was brought in April 1899.
2. The plaintiff contends that his intention was that the surrender was to be in April 1899. Assuming that it was so, we do not think that so short a notice was a reasonable notice in the case of an agricultural holding. On this ground and without deciding the other issues in the case we reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.
3. As regards the validity of the darkhast grant under which the plaintiff claims, but which the defendants say was obtained by fraud, we observe that the proper course is for the defendants to move the revenue authorities in the matter and apply for a grant of puttah to themselves insuper session of the grant made in the plaintiff's favour. We need hardly add that if it is proved that the plaintiff got the grant by practising fraud upon the revenue authorities, the grant would not bind Government and might be revoked by the revenue authorities.