Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs Kalabai and Ajudhi are the daughters of Lachhiabai. Gokul who was impleaded as defendant No.2 and who is now respondent No.3 in this appeal is the step son of Lachhiahai. The case of the plaintiffs was that Khasra Nos. 98 and that 151/4 of village Tarawali Khurd. Tahsil Berasia, District Sehore, belonged to Lachhiabai and on her death in June, 1960, the lands were inherited by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also pleaded some oral will which has rightly not been relied upon by the Courts below. The plaintiffs claimed declaration in respect of Khasra No 98 and rossession in respect of Khasra No. 151/4 against defendant-appellant Harnathsingh. The trial Court found that these lands originally belonged to Lachhiabai's husband Pannalal, and that Lachhiabai had inherited these lands after Pannalal's death. The trial Court further found that on Lachhiabai's death, the lands in suit were jointly inherited by' the plaintiffs and Gokul (defendant No.2). On those findings, the trial Court decreed the title of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 in respect of the lands in suit and also decreed possession in their favour of Khasra No. 151/4 against Harnathsingh. The same findings were confirmed in appeal by the third Additional District Judge, Bhopal. Held ; In this appeal the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that according to the pleadings the plaintiffs had claimed under a will or gift of Lachhiabai and that the suit could not have been decreed beyond the pleadings. There is no merit in this contention, because the plaintiffs had also claimed as heirs of Lachhia Bai and Another contention raised before me by the learned counsel is that on the pleadings of the plaintiffs the defendant was a sub-tenant and, therefore, he could be ejected in this suit because he became Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. 1959. It may here be mentioned that the defendant-appellant never pleaded in the written statement that he was a sub-tenant either of Lachhiabai or of the plaintiffs. He claimed to be in possession as purchaser from Lachhia Bai. The defendant-appellant claim as purchaser was negatived by both the Courts below and it has not been pressed before me by the learned counsel appearing for him. He claimed to be in possession as purchaser from Lachhia Bai. The defendant-appellant claim as purchaser was negatived by both the Courts below and it has not been pressed before me by the learned counsel appearing for him. As regards the question of sub-tenancy, I do not find any thing in the plaint from which it can be inferred that the plaintiffs admitted that the defendant-appellant was a sub-tenant. The relevant paragraphs in the plaint in this connection are paragraphs 7 and 8. In paragraph 7 it was pleaded by the plaintiff that after Lachhiabai's death the defendant-appellant took possession of Khasra No. 151/4 and gave out that the land was given to him by Lachhiabai as a Bataidar. In paragraph 8, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant-appellant did not give to them half shale as Bataidar. By reading both the paragraphs together, it is clear that the plaintiffs never stated that the defendant-appellant was made a Bataidar by Lachhiabai or by them. AJI that they stated was that the defendant-appellant claimed to be in possession as Bataidar and that he did not pay to the plaintiffs Batai even as Bataidar. As the defendant appellant did not accept in the written statement that he claimed to be in possession as Bataidar and as he set up a story of being in possession as a purchaser, it is clear that he cannot be accepted as a shikmi or Bataidar. It may further be noted that the reference to the defendant, appellant's claim as Bataidar in the plaint was only in respect of grass. The plaintiffs have only admitted this that in 1961 the defendant appellant claimed to be in possession of the land on the condition that he will give half the produce of grass. It may be difficult to hold that a person in possession of land on the condition that he would pay half the grass of the land to the Bhumiswami, would be in the position of a sub-tenant. For all these reasons, the defendant appellant's possession cannot be accepted as that of a sub-tenant. Appeal dismissed.