JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - There are 4 second appeals filed against the judgment of learned Additional Commissioner dated 19-2-74 by which he partly allowed the appeals against judgment of the trial court dated 17-4-1973 by which the trial court dismissed the two suits. 2. The two second appeals have been filed by plaintiff and two second appeals have been fried by defendant's. This judgment will govern all the four appeals and copy of which should be placed in the files. 3. Heard the learned counsels and perused the files. 4. The facts of the case are that on 9-3-1950 two suits were filed by Banshi Rai (father of Dharamdeo & others) against Kapil Thakur and Ex-Zamindars for declaration of sole sirdari rights in possession over the land in suit. It is alleged that after the death of Mst. Sundera who was recorded as along with Banshi the sole surviving tenant (Banshi) acquired the rights of Mst. Sundera also over the land in suit. In the alternative it is also alleged by the plaintiff that Mst. Sundera was not actually recorded as rightful co-tenant over the land in suit. It so happened that in 1898 she was recorded over the revenue papers on the basis of decree. On the death of her husband Hanuman it was accepted by the parties that Mst. Sundera widow of Hanuman be allowed to occupy certain portion of land for her maintenance only. In other words she was not given any share or co-tenancy right over the land in suit but for the maintenance she was permitted to occupy certain-portion of land during her life time. One suit was filed in respect of land of occupancy tenancy and the other suit was filed in respect of fixed rate tenancy. 5. On 3-7-1950 written statement was filed by Kapil Thakur (who only contested the suit). He denied the claim of the plaintiff and has alleged that he being the daughters son of Mst. Sundera was entitled to inherit her share and he should be recorded as co-tenant. 6. The trial court dismissed the suit on 17-4-1973 whereas the lower appellate court partly allowed the two appeals and held that over plot no. 79, 96 and 147 and 48/4 and 96 the plaintiff became the sole tenant whereas in the remaining plots he was a co-tenant along with defendant no. 1 Kapil. 6. The trial court dismissed the suit on 17-4-1973 whereas the lower appellate court partly allowed the two appeals and held that over plot no. 79, 96 and 147 and 48/4 and 96 the plaintiff became the sole tenant whereas in the remaining plots he was a co-tenant along with defendant no. 1 Kapil. Hence the 2 second appeals by the plaintiffs and two second appeals by the defendants have been filed in this court. 7. The relevant pedigree in the case is as follows :- Admittedly in the year 1893 Tenancy Act of 1881 (Act 12 of 1881) was applicable. Under this Act Hindu Law was applicable in cases of succession in respect of both occupancy and fixed rate tenancy. On 22-12-1898 there was a compromise between Mst. Sundera and Bhagwan. Admittedly Bhagwan and Hanuman held joint tenancy. Sundera admitted that she could not inherit her husbands property and she was allowed six bighas of land for her "Gujar Basar" (maintenance) and accordingly. In 1906 Ratan (Rajpati) filed a suit against Sundera. It was decreed in favour of Ratan. 8. The case of Kapil Thakur is that Mst. Sundera had executed a will on 15-6-1942 in favour of Kapil, hence he is entitled to have the share of Mst. Sundera. In the alternative he alleged that he is daughter's sou of Sundera and the name of his mother is Dukhui. These allegations were denied by the other party on the ground that Smt. Sundera had no right to transfer the property, hence she was not entitled to execute any will in respect of the same. It is also alleged that Kapil was not born from Mst. Dukhni but he was born from the "Sawat of Dukhni. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Mst. Sundera was not a co-tenant. She had only right to possess the land which was given to her in lieu of maintenance. Hence she could not transfer a right which she did not have Hence after her death the surviving alleged co-tenant became the owner of the so, called right of Mst. Sundera. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that Mst. Sundera was recorded in revenue papers and the entries of the revenue papers should be treated to be correct. Then Zamindar filed a suit against both. She had exchanged laud and had paid rent. Hence Mst. Sundera. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that Mst. Sundera was recorded in revenue papers and the entries of the revenue papers should be treated to be correct. Then Zamindar filed a suit against both. She had exchanged laud and had paid rent. Hence Mst. Sundera should be presumed to be co-tenant She had right as co-tenant to transfer the same or to exchange it. Her rights could be inherited by Kapil Thakur being the daughter's son of Mst. Sundera. 10. Thus the main question in the present appeal is whether the recorded Mst. Sundera was co-tenant or was merely recorded over the land which was given to her in lieu of maintenance. In other words it is to be seen whether Mst. Sundera was the full owner of the land or was only in possession over the laud which was given to her for "Gujar-Basar". 11. No doubt the entries, possession, exchange or giving rent might be good piece of evidence to show possession and thereby acquiring any right on the basis of possession in general cases. But by mere entry it cannot be said that a person has acquired right over the land in suit. There is no provision in Revenue Law under which the name of a person who has been granted possession over the land in lieu of maintenance to be recorded in specific manner. In other words even if a land is given to a person for maintenance for her lifetime she may be recorded in the revenue papers. By mere entry she cannot acquire any right or interest over such land. She has only right to possess the land during her life time. Such right is neither transferable nor inheritable. Such right vanishes after the death of such person. The consistent entry in her name cannot in any way raise the plea of estoppel or a co-tenancy. When from the very beginning Mst. Sundera had a limited interest over the land in suit, it cannot be said that she acquired the same after due course of time. The nature of possession cannot in any way give right to Mst. Sundera to transfer the same. 12. In such cases the question of estoppel, presumption of entries or the possession itself is immaterial. Nothing illegal or against the provision of law has been done in the present case. The nature of possession cannot in any way give right to Mst. Sundera to transfer the same. 12. In such cases the question of estoppel, presumption of entries or the possession itself is immaterial. Nothing illegal or against the provision of law has been done in the present case. Hence it cannot be said that the plaintiff who ought to have been done a thing has not done the same, hence he is estopped from denying the same. 13. Even before the death of Mst. Sundera the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute. Only six bighas were given to Mst. Sundera for her "Gujar Basar", hence her name was recorded in revenue papers along with tenant Bhagwan (of the branch of Banshi Rai plaintiff). Mst. Sundera was never given any co-tenancy right or right to inherit the property of her husband Hanuman. 14. Hence in my opinion it is not necessary to discuss in detail about the point of presumption of entries, question of possession, exchange or the point of estoppel in the present appeals. No action by Mst. Sundera can in any way improve the nature of her right over the land in suit. 15. There is no difference in respect of succession over the occupancy or fixed rate tenancy. 16. I, therefore, hold that when a person has initially been permitted to occupy some portion of land and not to transfer the same in his or her life-time and the same is recorded along with tenant, it cannot be said that due to the recording of the names in revenue papers co-tenancy right can be acquired either in respect of some portion of land or in respect of the remaining or whole portion of the land. When the entry is in accordance with law and nothing illegal act done is to be undone, it cannot be said that the other party is stopped from denying the same after the death of person concerned. The presumption in respect of existence of entries is revenue papers cannot change the nature of possession. 17. I, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Commissioner has improperly exercised jurisdiction while awarding co-tenancy right to Kapil Thakur in some plots of the land in suit. I, therefore, set aside that portion of the learned Additional Commissioners judgment. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed. 17. I, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Commissioner has improperly exercised jurisdiction while awarding co-tenancy right to Kapil Thakur in some plots of the land in suit. I, therefore, set aside that portion of the learned Additional Commissioners judgment. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The Plaintiff are held to be sole tenancy-holders of the land in suit. Under the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.