1. In our opinion the decree of the District Judge in this case was manifestly erroneous, and should not have been confirmed by this Court. The plaintiffs sued to eject the defendant on the allegations that they themselves were raiyats, that the defendant was an under raiyat and that steps had been taken in accordance with law to terminate by service of notice the under raiyati tenancy. The Court of first instance found that the alleged notice had not been served and dismissed the suit. In this view, that Court did not investigate the question raised by the defendant, namely, whether the plaintiffs had the alleged title. Upon appeal, the District Judge received in evidence a decree in a previous litigation which, by itself, really proved nothing. He set aside the finding of the first Court upon the question of notice and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree, because they had established that they were the landlords of the defendant. This view has been accepted by Mr. Justice Greaves, who called for the records in the previous litigation and looked at the judgment to elucidate the decree. We are of the opinion that on the facts found the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree. It is not enough for them to prove in an action in ejectment that they were landlords and the defendant was their tenant. They had to prove their alleged Status, namely, that they were raiyats, and further, that the defendant was an under raiyat under them, whose tenancy could be and had been terminated in the manner alleged. This has not been established.
2. This appeal must consequently be allowed and the suit dismissed with costs in all the Courts.