Judgment: — This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No. 262 of 1948 a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of makta from the appellant. The facts admitted or found may be briefly narrated. The plaint schedule property was originally owned by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff’s father purchased the same in execution of a decree obtained against the 2nd defendant After the purchase, he leased out the suit land to the 1st defendant for five years under Exhibit A-1 dated 7th May, 1941. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed O.S. No. 134 of 1942 against the plaintiff’s father and the 1st defendant for setting-aside the decree and the Court sale and for possession. The suit was decreed on 31st July, 1943. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against that decree, being A.S. No. 328 of 1943. The appeal was allowed on 7th September, 1945 and the title of the plaintiff’s father was affirmed. Pending the appeal on 6th December 1943, the plaintiff filed an application for stay of execution of the decree and for a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from cutting and carrying away the crops. The 1st defendant also filed an application for a temporary injunction. On 14th December, 1943, the Court made an interim order directing the crops not to be cut and posted the application for final enquiry to 16th December) 1943. On 16th December, 1943, final orders were made staying execution and directing the 2nd defendant not to remove the crops. Notwithstanding the said orders, the 2nd defendant cut and carried away the crops. In 1944, the 2nd defendant entered the land. The 1st defendant filed O.S.No.276 of 1944 against the 2nd defendant and obtained a decree for the value of the crop removed by her. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the rent due for three years 1943 to 1946. The 1st defendant raised the plea that he had been evicted by a person with title paramount and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the rent due to the plaintiff. The learned District Munsif held that the 1st defendant was evicted by title paramount and, therefore, the suit for rent was not maintainable. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge took a contrary view and decreed the Suit. Hence, the appeal. The principle of law is well-settled and indeed there is no dispute about it. The learned District Munsif held that the 1st defendant was evicted by title paramount and, therefore, the suit for rent was not maintainable. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge took a contrary view and decreed the Suit. Hence, the appeal. The principle of law is well-settled and indeed there is no dispute about it. Eviction by title paramount destroys the effect of the grant and the corresponding liability for payment of rent. But the difficulty lies in the application of the principle to the facts of each case. Can it be said that, in the instant case, the 1st defendant had been evicted by title paramount ? From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is obvious that, at the time the 2nd defendant took possession, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was pending and the title of the 2nd defendant was not finally upheld. Any decree that was obtained by the 2nd defendant was only tentative and subject to the result of the appeal. An appeal is only a continuation of the suit and the moment an appeal is filed, the finality of the decision of the first Court is suspended. But, it is said that, though an appeal was pending, the 2nd defendant took possession under a decree and so her possession could not be equated to that of a trespasser or a person taking forcible possession. This argument ignores the admitted fact that possession was not taken in execution of a decree, but the crop was forcibly cut despite a stay order against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant trespassed upon the land ignoring the order of the Court staying her hands. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the removal of the crops, or the taking of subsequent possession were illegal acts committed by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant was not evicted by title paramount but by the illegal action of a person in defiance of Court’s orders. Eviction by a decree-holder of a tenant pending an appeal which is ultimately allowed during the period when execution of the decree was stayed cannot in any sense of the term be described as eviction by paramount title. I, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. No leave. D.L.N. -------- Appeal dismissed.