Short Note : 1. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants for possession of certain parcels of agricultural land. The plaintiff's case was that the suit land, which was Inam land, was initially let out to the father and grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively but was unlawfully sublet by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that parcel of land bearing survey No. 120 was let out to defendant No. 4 and the remaining parcels of suit land were let out to defendant No. 3. The suit was heard exparte and decreed. On appeal preferred by defendant No. 3 Chhotu, the lower appellate Court held that Chhotu had become an occupancy tenant and, in this view of the matter, the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was not maintainable. The lower appellate Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court even in respect of the decree passed against defendant No. 4 Balkishan though Balkishan had not preferred any appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. Held : In the order admitting this appeal, it has been expressly admitted in respect of plaintiff's claim for land bearing survey No. 120 alleged to have been sublet to defendant No. 4 Balkishan. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had received possession of the said parcel of land from defendant No. 4 Balkishan. Against the decree passed by the trial Court, defendant No. 4 Balkishan had not preferred any appeal. Hence the lower appellate Court erred in law in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court against defendant No. 4 Balkishan. Appeal partly allowed.