This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of title. There is also the prayer for recovery of khas possession. [2] The facts are as follows : The land in suit belonged to the estate of Raja Bhairabendra Barayan Bhup. The estate was under the Court of Wards. The land in suit was given on lease to Jalhai Majhi by patta, Ex. 1, dated 18th November 1940. The lease was for five years. The rights under the lease were not transfera­ble. The lease was also subject to the condition that if the estate was released by the Court of Wards before the expiry of the terms of the lease, the lease will determine automatically. [3] Plaintiff's case was that he purchased the rights of Jalahi Majhi under the patta, Ex. 1, for Bs. 80 and got possession o£ the land in Magh 1347 B. B. He was in possession till he was dis­possessed on 2nd Ashar 1352 B. S. by contesting defendants. [4] Defendants pleaded that they had purcha­sed the rights of Jalhai Majhi in the name of one Ramananda, elder brother of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 is the father of these defendants. It was further contended that plaintiff had never been in possession of the land and was not dispossessed as alleged. [5] The trial Court found that though the lease in favour of Jalhai Majhi, pro forma defen­dant, was to expire at the end of March 1945, it actually expired at the end of September 1944, when the estate was released. The rights under the lease not being transferable, the Court further found that plaintiff acquired no valid title by his purchase. Defendant 2 on the other hand had secured a mutation in respect of the land from the landlord, In these circumstances he dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Dist­rict Judge, Assam Valley Districts, found that plaintiffs' purchase of lessee's rights of Jalhai had been proved. Plaintiff got possession under the sale of the lessee rights in his favour and was dispossessed later by defendants. In his view the fact that the rights under the lease could not be transferred, did not affect the right of the plaintiff as the landlord alone could take advantage of that condition. Plaintiff got possession under the sale of the lessee rights in his favour and was dispossessed later by defendants. In his view the fact that the rights under the lease could not be transferred, did not affect the right of the plaintiff as the landlord alone could take advantage of that condition. The transfer of lessee rights according to his view was at the most voidable at his instance and he, even though a party to this case, had not objected to that transfer. He held further that the lease terminated with the release of the estate but the landlord accepted rent from the plaintiff after the release of the estate and thus acquies­ced in the continuance of the tenancy. Plaintiff, therefore, had the right to continue on in pos­session till evicted in due course of law. He allowed the appeal on these findings and grant­ed plaintiff a decree in terms of his prayer. Defendants have appealed to this Court. [6] The finding that plaintiff purchased 'the lessee rights from Jalhai and got possession in pursuance of this transaction is one of fact and is not open to challenge in second appeal. The learned counsel has not been able to show any .valid ground on which it could be assailed. The learned District Judge was also right in the view that the transfer of the lessee rights to plaintiff though in contravention of the terms of the lease was merely voidable at the instance of the landlord. It was not wholly void. The landlord had not sued to set aside the transfer and has not challenged it even in these proceed­ings. Plaintiff's title, therefore, under the trans­fer remained till the case expired otherwise. His title thus cannot be challenged on this ground. [7] The lease no doubt was determined by the release of the estate. But the landlord's ac­ceptance of rent from the plaintiff after the termination of the original lease proved his acquiescence in the continuance of the tenancy. In these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to remain in possession as a tenant until evicted in due course of law. If the landlord has created any tenancy in favour of the defendants, they can institute legal proceedings for the ejectment of the plaintiff. In these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to remain in possession as a tenant until evicted in due course of law. If the landlord has created any tenancy in favour of the defendants, they can institute legal proceedings for the ejectment of the plaintiff. They could not take the law in their own hands and disposes the plaintiff for­cibly, so long as his tenancy, continued by the conduct of the parties, was not determined in some manner known to law. Plaintiff, therefore, had a good cause for action for suing for a de­claration of his right to remain in possession till he was evicted in due course of law. A decree to that effect could have been passed in his favour. [8] The learned District Judge has decreed the claim. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is vague. He has asked for a declaration of title to the property and for khas possession. His rights actually are the rights of a person whose lease for a fixed term has come to an end but who is in possession with the tacit consent of the land-lord. As such he has no doubt the right to remain in possession, But the actual declaration that he can get is that he is entitled to remain in posses­sion as a tenant till evicted in due course of law. [9] The appeal is formally allowed. The de­cree in plaintiff's favour will be modified only to this extent that instead of having a declara­tion of title, his right to remain in possession until evicted in -due course of law will be declar­ed. The decree for khas possession will stand. [10] Parties to bear their own costs in this Court. Decree modified.