Short Note : 1. The learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that the defendants had become occupancy tenants and Bhumiswamis of the suit land. The contention must be upheld. Defendant No. 1 Ganesh stated on oath that he never held the suit land as a sub-tenant. In face of this admission, it cannot be held that defendant No. 1 was holding the land as a sub-tenant. The finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 were proved to be sub-tenants is, therefore, vitiated, as it is not based on and is contrary to the evidence on record. Appeal allowed.