JUDGMENT Randhir Singh, J. - This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain tenancy plots. The plots admittedly formed the tenancy of one Chhedi who died in 1921 leaving a widow Srimati Ramkali. This widow also died on 14-2-1943. The Plaintiff Mangli Prasad is the daughter's son of Ghhedi and Ram Kali and he brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal for possession of these plots on the allegations that he succeeded to the tenancy on the death of Ramkali and that the Defendant had taken wrongful possession of plots. A sum of Rs. 20/- was also claimed as damages. The suit was contested by the Defendant on two grounds. He denied that the Plaintiff was the daughter's son of Ramkali or was in existence on the date when Srimati Ramkali died. He further claimed that he was the adopted son of Chhedi and as such was her preferential heir to the tenancy. 2. Both the courts have found that the Plaintiff was the daughter's son of Chhedi but was not in existence on the date when Ramkali died. The suit was, therefore, thrown out by both the courts. The Plaintiff has now come up in second appeal. 3. The question as to whether the Plaintiff had been born before the death of Ramkali had not been decided after framing a specific issue on that point and an issue was therefore remitted by this Court to the trial court for a clear finding as to whether the Plaintiff was or was not in existence on the date of the death of Ramkali. The finding of the learned Munsif is that Ramkali died on 14-2-1943, and that the Plaintiff was born sometime in November, 1943. The finding of the Munsif has not been challenged and I, therefore, take it that the Plaintiff was born after the death of Ramkali. As he was not in existence on the date when Ramkali died the rights of tenancy held by Ramkali lapsed and could not pass on to the Plaintiff who was born long after the death of Ramkali. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Plaintiff must have been in womb at the time of the death of Ramkali and his existence should, therefore, be presumed. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Plaintiff must have been in womb at the time of the death of Ramkali and his existence should, therefore, be presumed. Firstly, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was in womb on the date of the death of Ramkali Ramkali died on 14-2-1943, and the Plaintiff was born nine months after. Secondly, even if the Plaintiff had been in womb this circumstance would not invest him with the right of succession Under Sections 35 and 36 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The U.P. Tenancy Act lays down a special rule of succession and the principles of the Hindu Law cannot be made to govern the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The argument advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff has, therefore, no force. 5. In view of the above findings the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. 6. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1357 of 1954 is also dismissed.