JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 5, 1977 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, partly allowing appeal and holding defendant tenant of plot No. 8187/10, and of 3 acre in plot No. 8185 out of area 5.68 and dismissing plaintiff's appeal regarding remaining plots by partly setting aside judgment and decree dated April 30, 1976 passed by S.D.O. Lalitpur and partly dismissing it in a case under Sections 209/229-B of Act I of 1951 decreeing plaintiff's suit for plot Nos. 81855.63, 8187/.10, 8228/2.34 and 8228/1.81. 2. Gaon Sabha Khadi through its Pradhan Jai Ram Yadav had filed a suit under Section 209/229 Z.A. and L.R. Act against Prahlad Kumar and others in respect of plot No. 8187, 8228, 8229 and 8185 total area 2.12 acres situate in village Talbehet Pargana Talbehat district Lalitpur with the allegations that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and defendants and their father Ram Ratan and their grand father Ram Nath had no concern with the land that plot No. 8228 was bandh belonging to Gaon Sabha, that Ram Nath wrongly got his name recorded as Sirdar although he was never in possession that Ram Nath wrongly transferred the land to defendants although he had no right to do so and that the defendants were trespassers. If, therefore, prayed for a declaration in its favour and also for the ejectment of the defendants. 3. If, therefore, prayed for a declaration in its favour and also for the ejectment of the defendants. 3. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 3 who denied the case of the plaintiff and alleged that on plot No. 8228 a bandh was constructed by Ram Nath grand father of the defendants, that Ram Nath had constructed slide gate in the year 1906, that tank along with slide gate belonged to the ancestor of Ram Nath and devolved on Ram Nath after the death of the ancestor, that on May 19, 1959 Ram Nath executed a Will in favour of defendants in support of the above bandh and the tank, that Ram Nath used to irrigate his land by water of the tank, that on plot No. 8185 there are several trees of the defendants and some portion of it was Banjar, that on plot No.8287 defendants have got trees and some portion of it was Banjar, that on plot No. 8228 also there are some trees and there is a memorial of their grand father Ram Nath, and the over plot No. 8228 there is tank, bandh and trees. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It has been argued that Band in plot No. 8228/1.21 was constructed by their ancestor Ram Nath who had also constructed slide gate in the year 1906; that the tank and the band and slide gate belonged to his ancestor who had executed a will in favour of the defendant; that notice of 1913, order of S.D.O. dated November 27, 1921 and of Tahsildar dated August 11, 1961, report dated September 14, 1958, January 29, 1961 and permission of Pradhan dated December 27, 1958 go to prove that they had been using the remaining disputed land for which appeal was not allowed as an improvement for irrigating their plots and are no liable to ejectment from them. Reliance has been placed on Section 4(12) of Act I of 1901, Section 3(11) of Agra Tenancy Act, Section 3(8)(e) and (f) of U.P. Tenancy Act, Section 212 of Act I of 1951 and Section 3(8), Section 4, Section (7) (aa) of Act I of 1951. 5. It has been argued in reply that even if the plaintiffs had been using the remaining disputed land as an improvement for their holding they cannot become their Sirdars. 5. It has been argued in reply that even if the plaintiffs had been using the remaining disputed land as an improvement for their holding they cannot become their Sirdars. 6. No second appeal or cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and State regarding plot No. 8187/.10 and 3 acres of plot No. 8185 out of 5.63 acres, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner regarding them has become final. 7. Improvement in North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 was defined in Section 4(12) of that Act was follows:- "Section 4(12). 'Improvement' means with reference to a tenant's holding, any work which adds materially to the letting value of the holding which is suitable to the holding and consisting with the purpose for which it was let and which, if not executed on the holding, is either executed directly for its benefit or is after execution made directly beneficial to its and, subject to the foregoing provisions, includes- (a) the construction of tanks, wells, water channel and other works for the storage, supply, or distribution of water for agricultural purposes; (b) the construction of works for the drainage of land, or for the protection of land from floods, or from erosion or other damage by water; (c) the planting of trees, and the reclaiming, clearing, enclosing, levelling or terracing of land; (d) the erection of building on the holding, or in its immediate vicinity, elsewhere than on the village site required for the convenient or profitable use or occupation of the holding; and (e) the removal or reconstruction of any of the foregoing works or alterations therein or additions thereto; but it does not include- (f) such temporary wells, water channels, embankments, levellings, enclosures, or other works, or petty alterations or repairs to such works, are made by tenants in the ordinary course of cultivation; or (g) unless made with the written consent of the proprietor of the land, any work that substantially diminishes the value of any other land belonging to proprietor." 8. In Agra Tenancy Act in sub-section (3)(11) as follows:- "Sub-section (3)(11). In Agra Tenancy Act in sub-section (3)(11) as follows:- "Sub-section (3)(11). 'Improvement' means, with reference to a tenant's holding, any work which adds materially to the letting value of the holding which is suitable to the holding and consistent with the purpose for which it was left and which, if not executed on the holding, is either executed directly for its benefit, or is after execution made directly beneficial to it, and subject to the foregoing provisions, includes- (a) the construction of tanks, wells, water channels, and other works for the storage, supply or distribution of water for agricultural purposes; (b) the construction of works for the drainage of land, or for the protection of land from floods, or from erection or other damage by water; (c) the planting of trees and the reclaiming, clearing, enclosing, levelling or terracing of land; (d) the erection of building on the holding or in its immediate vicinity, elsewhere than on the village site required for the convenient or profitable use or occupation of the holding; and (e) the renewal or reconstruction of any of the foregoing works or such alternations therein, or additions thereto, as are not of the nature of mere repairs; but it does not include- (f) such water channels, embankments, levellings, enclosures, temporary wells, or other works as are made by tenant in the ordinary course of cultivation." 9. It was defined in Section 3(8) of U.P. Tenancy Act as follows:- "Section 3(8). It was defined in Section 3(8) of U.P. Tenancy Act as follows:- "Section 3(8). 'Improvement' means with reference to a tenant's holding: (i) a dwelling-house erected on the holding by the tenant for his own occupation or a cattle shed or a store-house or any other construction for agricultural purposes erected or set up him on his belonging; (ii) any work which adds materially to the value of the holding and is consistent with the purpose, for which it was let, and which, if not executed on the holding, if either executed directly for its benefit or is after execution made directly beneficial to it, and, subject to the foregoing provisions of this clause, includes:- (a) the construction of wells, water channels and in other words for the supply or distribution of water for agricultural purposes; (b) the construction of works for the drainage of land, or for the protection of land from floods or from erosion of other damage by water; (c) the reclaiming, clearing, enclosing, levelling or terracing of land; (d) the erection in the immediate vicinity of the holding otherwise than on the village site, of buildings required for the convenient or profitable use or occupation of the holding; (e) the construction of tanks or other works for the storage of water for agricultural purposes; (f) the renewal or reconstruction of any of the foregoing works, or such alterations therein or additions thereto, as are not of the nature of mere repairs." 10. Section 7 of Act I of 1951 runs as follows:- Section 7 "Saving in respect of certain rights - Nothing contained in this Chapter shall in any way affect the rights of any person- (a) to continue to work any mines comprised in any estate hereinbefore acquired which shall be governed by the law for the time being in force; (aa) being a Bhumidhar, Sirdar, Adhivasi, or Asami of land, to continue to enjoy any easement or any similar right for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land, as he was enjoying on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting." 11. In Atmaram Sadashiv Dongarwar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1967 Bombay 452. In Atmaram Sadashiv Dongarwar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1967 Bombay 452. It was held as follows:- "It is open, therefore, to an occupant or tenure-holder under the Code to show that he has got a right in the property which belongs to Government on the date on which Section 50 came into force. Sections 45, 46 and 47 did affirm the customary rights which the expropriator and the occupancy holder enjoyed. Thus, under Section 50 these rights are preserved to them. The combined effect, therefore of the saving clauses, Sections 145 and 146 in Chapter XII and Section 50 of the Code, clearly indicates that customary right to take water from lake for irrigation purposes was not intended to be taken away by the Land Revenue Code." 12. It has been held in Ram Diya and others v. Gram Samaj and others 1963 R.D. 34 (H.C.) as follows:- "What Section 7(aa) means is that not only the tenure of Bhumidhar, Sirdar etc. was protected but their right in the nature of easement or any similar right which was necessary for the enjoyment of the agricultural land was also protected. It is wrong to say that the phrase 'any similar rights' means an easementary right. This phrase means a subordinate right other than a right of easement under which a Bhumidhar or Sirdar etc. has a right to retain and continue in possession of the land for the beneficial enjoyment of an agricultural land. This section obviously gives protection to the possessory rights of the Bhumidhar, or Sirdar etc. in land other than Bhumidhari, and Sirdari land. The only requirement than that such other land must be necessary for the more beneficial enjoyment of the Bhumidhar and the Sirdar. A piece of land which is being used for such agricultural purposes as tethering cattle or keeping a Kolhu or storing manure is an much necessary for the enjoyment of the Bhumidhar and Sirdar as the agricultural land itself. The phrase 'similar right' is governed by another phrase 'for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land'. This right is obviously different from the right of easement and consequently the right of Bhumidhar or a Sirdar to use a particular parcel of land for agricultural purposes is covered by Section 7(aa). The phrase 'similar right' is governed by another phrase 'for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land'. This right is obviously different from the right of easement and consequently the right of Bhumidhar or a Sirdar to use a particular parcel of land for agricultural purposes is covered by Section 7(aa). The land in dispute was used for such purposes from before the vesting and consequently the plaintiff's right was in no way affected by the abolition of the Zamindari. They were entitled to protection of Section 7(aa)." 13. It has been held in Raja Ram son of Harkesh and others v. State of U.P. through the Collector, Muzaffarnagar and others 1964 R.D. 146 as follows: "The legislation in enacting the Act sought to abolish the zamindari system but preserved the existing beneficial enjoyment of land by the tillers of the soil. The object behind Section 7 of the Act is to benefit the cultivators as well as cultivatory holding. These provisions are in their nature beneficent legislation. In interpreting a piece of beneficent legislation, if there is any doubt the meaning of its material provisions that no doubt should be resolved in favour of the beneficent object. The material provisions should be liberally construed. Easement is a well known class of rights by using the world 'easement' that class was completely represented in the section. If the object was to represent a genus by using the word 'easements' then the other words, namely, 'any similar right' would become more surplusage. Such a construction is to be avoided. The words 'any similar right' are of general import. They should receive their full and natural meaning, specially when by so construing them, the avowed intention of the legislature will be fulfilled. The controlling words in Section 7 consist in the phase 'the more beneficial enjoyment of the land'. These rights, be they easements or otherwise, which tend to the more beneficial enjoyment of the land, are sought to be preserved. In my opinion, the phrase 'any similar rights' does not connote such rights which could be in law defined as easements. The words 'any similar right' should not be interpreted as being controlled by the word 'easement'. They represent a different category of rights. The words are of general import and should receive from the courts their full and natural meaning. The words 'any similar right' should not be interpreted as being controlled by the word 'easement'. They represent a different category of rights. The words are of general import and should receive from the courts their full and natural meaning. Hence the zamindar who have been using the land in dispute as their Khaliyan for a long time have a right to continue to do so." 14. It was again held in Ambika Prasad Major and others v. Ramzani 1966 R.D. 150 as follows:- "The phrase 'any similar right' in Section 7 (aa) denotes rights different in their nature and character from easements. User of a well for irrigating plots of land is equally a requirement of beneficial enjoyment of the land. Such rights differ from easement in their nature and character. Their enjoyment for any length of time is not necessary. Another point of distinction is that an easement cannot be acquired by a tenant in the other land of his landlord. The tenant's interest is derivative. He, in law, represents the owner to the extent of his tenancy interest in the leased land is constructively the possession of the owner himself. Just as an owner cannot acquire a prescriptive right of an easement in his own land, so also a tenant, as he is only a representative of the owner qua the owner's other lands. The point is well settled. But there are exceptions to this rule. A tenant can claim a right user other land of his landlord through some recognised and valid local custom. He can claim rights under the presumption of a lost grant as well. In the absence of an express agreement or grant or local custom, the user has to be for a sufficient length in point of time to enable the court to raise a presumption that the source of the user was an implied grant by the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy if user of three years is wholly insufficient. Held: The parties went to trial in the instant case on the specific issue whether the plaintiff has acquired any prescriptive right of easement. Held: The parties went to trial in the instant case on the specific issue whether the plaintiff has acquired any prescriptive right of easement. The plaintiff who had used the well only from three years prior to the date of vesting, was not entitled to any relief, either on the ground that he has acquired an easement, or that he had 'any similar right' of irrigating his holding form the well. The question whether the plaintiff has such other rights is a mixed question of fact and law." 15. Section 7(aa) of Act I of 1951 has been enacted to safeguard easementary rights acquired by the tenure-holders or similar beneficial rights for agricultural purpose. It does not confer any tenancy right but entitles to continue to enjoy any easement or any similar right for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land immediately preceding the date of vesting. The difference between an easement and the expression or 'any similar right' for more beneficial enjoyment of the land has been well explained by their Lordships in Ambika Prasad v. Ramzani (supra). It is almost settled law that a tenant was not entitled to acquire as landlord over land belonging to his own landlord and similarly a zamindar being a proprietor cannot claim easement over his own land it is wrong to say that any other similar right means an easementary right. 16. In the present case by using slide gate for irrigation purposes of his land by the defendant before abolition of zamindari and afterwards the defendant did not get any easementary right in the disputed land. He did not get any tenancy rights also in the disputed land being used only as an improvement for the beneficial enjoyment of his land and got only right of using the water of the tank for irrigating his land for the more beneficial enjoyment of his land and nothing more therefore, he has been wrongly recorded to be Sirdar of the disputed land which right he never acquired, therefore, the lower appellate court rightly held that the disputed land which right he acquired, therefore, the lower appellate court rightly held that the disputed land was Gaon Sabha's land and rightly dismissed the appeal for the disputed land. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are liable to be confirmed. 17. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are hereby confirmed. The name of the defendant recorded as Sirdar on the disputed land shall be expunged and it shall be recorded as Gaon Sabha land. The papers shall be corrected accordingly.