JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 14-1-1961 of the Civil Judge, Deoria, dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the judgment of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over four plots bearing nos. 1947, 1976, 2090 and 1973 described in the plaint. 2. The relevant facts as found by the courts below are that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the plots in suit. Nearly 16 years before they filed the suit they mortgaged the plots in favour of defendant no. 2 Ram Dhani and the father of defendant no. 3 Jagannath and put the mortgagees in possession of the plots. About three years before the filing of the suit the plaintiffs got the mortgages redeemed and entered into possession of the plots in dispute. The plaintiffs filed the suit with the allegation that defendant no. 1, the appellant before this Court, in collusion with the lekhpal and defendants nos. 2 and 3 got his name fictitiously entered in the Shikmi column of the Khasra in respect of the plots in suit and on the basis of the said entry the defendants were trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants nos. 2 and 3 did not contest the suit and the suit was contested only by the appellant throughout. 4. While the case was pending in the trial court an issue was remitted to the revenue court for a finding as to whether the appellant who was the defendant no. 1 was the Adhivasi of the plots in suit. The issue was decided by the revenue court in the negative. 5. It may be mentioned that according to the appellant who denied the entire plaint allegations, he was admitted to the tenancy of the four plots by the zamindar and he continued to be in actual possession of the same as tenant. The appellant further claimed that as he was recorded as an occupant in the year 1356 and 1359 faslis, he became an Adhivasi of the plots in the suit and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. 6. The courts below found that the appellant failed to prove the alleged lease said to have been executed in his favour by the zamindar. 6. The courts below found that the appellant failed to prove the alleged lease said to have been executed in his favour by the zamindar. On the other hand, it has been found by the courts below that the defendant-appellant actually was recorded as sub-tenant of the mortgagees of plots nos. 1947, 1976, 2090 and 1973 but the courts below rejected the appellant's contention that he had become an Adhivasi because according to the lower court as the mortgagees could only have acquired the rights of an Assami as occupants of the plots as mortgagees in the year 1356 F. the appellant who was the shikmi of the sub-tenant of the mortgagees could not have acquired a superior right than that of an Assami. Due to the same reasoning and also because the appellant failed to prove that he was in possession of plot no. 1973 as of right in the year 1359 F. the plaintiff's suit was decreed in respect of all the four plots and the pleas taken by the appellant were rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. As was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the finding of the courts below that the appellant was recorded as the occupant of the three plots mentioned above in the year 1356 F. and as there is no finding that the entry was brought about by fraud the courts below should have dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of these three plots because the appellant ought to have been held to have become an Adhivasi of these three plots in view of the provisions of Section 20 (b) of the I.J.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. In support of this contention my attention was drawn to the observations made by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ no. 2741 of 1965 Guddan and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 1971 ALJ page 516 and also to observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 466 Smt. Sonawati and others v. Shri Ram and another, and by Full Bench of this Court reported in 1967 ALJ 960, Chobey Sunder Lal v. Sana alias Sonpal and another. From a perusal of the observations made in these rulings mentioned above I find myself in agreement with the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant. 8. The lower court, however, was right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit in respect of plot no. 1973. The appellant was not recorded as an occupant of this plot in the year 1356 F. His name was recorded as 'occupant' of this plot in the year 1356 F. but in order to be able to make advantage of this entry the appellant had to prove that he was in possession of the plot in 1359 F. legally or as of right. The courts below have held that the appellant failed to prove the plea taken by him that all these plots were leased out to him by the Zamindar and he continued to be in possession of these plots throughout as a lessee. 9. In view of what has been discussed the appeal is partly allowed in respect of plots nos. 1947, 1976 and 2090 and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed in respect of these plots. The appeal is, however, dismissed in respect of plot no. 1973 and the judgment and decree passed by the lower court in respect of this plot is upheld. The parties shall bear their own costs.