JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs are ex proprietary tenants of certain plot in the village. They made a zeripeshgi lease for 7 years in favour of Jagannath defendant who is said to have sub-let the land to the appellant Makhan Lal, one of the zemindars. The plaintiffs sued for ejectment of their sub-tenant Jagannath and his sub-tenant Makhan Lal. The defence raised by Makhan Lal who has virtually defended the suit was that he was in possession as a zemindar and that the plot was his khudkasht and that the usufructuary mortgage by the plaintiffs in favour of Jagannath was illegal. It was also pleaded that no relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. The first Court came to the conclusion that the sub-lease of the plaintiffs to Jagannath was void as it exceeded 5 years and that Makhan Lal was not a sub-tenant. In the result it dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the lease by the plaintiffs was a subsisting lease and that Makhan Lal was a sub-tenant and his allegation that be had taken forcible possession was incorrect. The defendant Makhan Lal comes here in second appeal and his first contention before me was based on the case of Bam Sarup v. Kishen Lal (1907) 29 All. 327 = 4 A.L.J. 306= (1907) A.W.N. 76, where it was held that a landlord's inaction in getting a lease declared void did not validate an invalid lease. That case is in my opinion not in point and if it is it is against the defendant landlord. At page 329 of the report Mr. Justice Banerji says in course of his judgment: "But it may be that what the Legislature contemplated was that in the case of a landholder he might accept and recognise the transfer, but if be wished to repudiate it, he must do so at an early date and bring his suit within one year of the transfer." In the present case the allegation of the defendant-appellant that he took forcible possession has been disbelieved. There was no attempt by the landholder as provided by section 31 of the Tenancy Act to get rid of the sublease given by the plaintiffs to Jagannath, so that in any event he is bound by his failure to take action within one year provided by the Tenancy Act. The learned Judge has possibly hit the truth when he says that there was collusion between Makhan Lal and Jagannath to get hold of this ex-proprietary holding by putting up a case of forcible possession. The Judge has found that Makhan Lal is in fact the subtenant of Jagannath. Under these circumstances the finding of the Court below seems to be correct and I dismiss this appeal with costs.