JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain plots and damages on the ground that they were the occupancy holdings of the plaintiff and the defendants had wrongfully dispossessed him. The defence taken was that so far as two of the plots were concerned the defendants had nothing to do with them and as to other plots the defence was that the defendants had got a lease of these plots from the Zemindar on the 7th of July, 1919, that they had sowed the crop and reaped it and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. It appears that one Ram Jiawan, the own brother of the plaintiff, was the recorded occupancy tenant of these plots and after Ram Jiawan's death the name of his widow was entered on these plots. After the widow's death in 1919 the plaintiff claimed the holding as occupancy tenant. The Zemindar apparently disputed this and gave a lease of some of the plots to the defendants* on the 7th of July, 1919, as stated above. It appears further that five days later, that is, on the 12th of July 1919 the plaintiff put in an application against the Zemindar u/s 95 of the Tenancy Act for a declaration of his rights as a tenant. This suit succeeded in the Assistant Collector's Court and the appeal in that suit taken by the Zemindar to the Commissioner has, 1 am informed, been dismissed after the decision of this case by the lower appellate Court. The present suit was decreed in part by the Munsiff who awarded possession to the plaintiff and decreed Rs. 36 as damages. The defendants went up in appeal and that appeal has been dismissed. They come here in second appeal. Their first contention is that the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court having decided the question of title against the plaintiff should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim and not given a decree on what he supposed to be an anterior possession. It is not very easy to understand what title this anterior possession gave. The present suit was not brought until June, 1920 that is to say more than six months after the lease in favour of the defendants. It is not very easy to understand what title this anterior possession gave. The present suit was not brought until June, 1920 that is to say more than six months after the lease in favour of the defendants. According to the plaintiff the defendants took away his crop in March, 1920 and unless the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court meant to hold that the suit was within six months of that date his, decree is meaningless. So far as the question of plaintiff's title as an occupancy tenant was concerned, the learned Judge has not come to any definite conclusion but has left the question undecided. In the concluding part of his Judgment he leaves aside the question of title and says that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of his holding on the strength of his previous possession. The present suit was based on the question of plaintiff's title and he could not succeed on the ground of possessory title in case he failed to prove his real title. This is clear from the Full Bench case of Lachman v. Shambhu Narain (1911) 33 All. 174 to which the learned Judge curiously enough has referred in his judgment. The case of Umrao Singh v. Ramji Das, (1914) 36 All. 51 has no application to such a case where the suit was based on the plaintiff's title and not on the basis of possessory right only. As the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has not given a definite finding on the question of plaintiff's title 1 refer the following issue to him for disposal. 2. Is the plaintiff an occupancy tenant of the land in dispute and is his claim for possession within time ? 3. No further oral evidence is to be received. The issue is to be decided on the evidence actually on the record with such additional documentary evidence which the parties might think fit to produce. On receipt of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.