JUDGMENT Grant, J.M. 1. A second appeal in four connected cases u/s 44. 2. The Raja of Bara sued to eject Mst. Subhadri, a recorded sub-tenant, from 3 plots, and in the other case the grandsons of one Sipahi, recorded subtenants of two other plots. Counter-cases have been filed by the recorded sub-tenants claiming occupancy rights. The cause of action in both holdings being the death of the recorded tenant-in-chief, Mst. Dasudri in 1932. 3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit for ejectment holding that the Appellants were really statutory tenants-in-chief by virtue of two leases executed on 19-9-1896 by the Sazawal of the Court of Wards in favour of Beni, the husband of Mst. Subhadri and of Sipahi, the grandfather of the other Appellants. 4. The recorded sub-tenants' rent, vis. Rs. 16 and Rs. 22 respectively is actually less than the recorded occupancy rent of Rs. 16-6-0 and Rs. 22-4-0 and apparently is being paid direct to the zamindar, although it must be admitted that the agent's statement regarding payment is somewhat vague. 5. The Appellant's case is that the land in suit was originally the holding or Ishri, who relinquished it in 1304 and the Sazawal gave it to Beni and Sipahi, their predcessors-in-interest, through the leases referred to above. Since then Appellants have continued to hold the land on the same rent as given in the lease. There is further confirmation of the surrender in the marginal notes made by Bhagwan Das Sazawal in the khasra of 1308 against the two holdings to the effect that the tenant-in-chief had resigned and arrangements had been made with a new tenant. 6. The learned Commissioner who allowed the appeals of the zamindar disregarded the leases on the ground that the Sazawal had no authority to give a lease without the permission of the Special Manager ; he also regarded the entry in khasra of 1308 F. regarding surrender as somewhat suspicious. 7. I do not see, however, how the leases can be discarded. They were given a long time ago before elaborate rules for the Court of Wards had been drawn up, and in any case it is probable that they were given with the approval of the Special Manager. 8. The Appellants showed their bona fides by calling for the production of the estate papers to prove the lease. They were given a long time ago before elaborate rules for the Court of Wards had been drawn up, and in any case it is probable that they were given with the approval of the Special Manager. 8. The Appellants showed their bona fides by calling for the production of the estate papers to prove the lease. It is unfortunate that the register of leases has not been produced, though many other irrelevant estate papers of the same years have been offered instead. 9. The patwari, however, continued to record Ishri in possession until his death in 1308 F. when he was succeeded by his widow Subhadri. Later on Subhadar's death the name of her husband's brother's widow was recorded, viz., Mst. Dasodra, although legally she had no possible right to succeed to the occupancy tenancy. 10. Ishri's descendants certainly never cultivated the land in suit, and as there was no contract between them and the Appellant's antecedents, they must be considered to have abandoned the holdings, see Kharagjit v. Dharam Singh 1 R.D. (R.E.) 594: 7 S.D. 1932. I find it proved that the Appellant's predecessors were admitted as tenants-in-chief since 1304 F. and have held the land ever since at this rent entered in their leases. It follows that they have now acquired occupancy rights. 11. The result is that I would allow the appeals and set aside the order of the learned Commissioner with costs and Pleader's fees. Knox, S.M. 12. I concur.