JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.11.1980, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital, in civil appeal No. 77 of 1980, whereby said appellate court, has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.05.1980, passed by the then Munsif, Kashipur, dismissing the original suit No. 220 of 1978, between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that original suit No. 220 of 1978, was filed by Ram Kali (original plaintiff), seeking injunction against Nagar Palika, Ramnagar, alleging she was in possession of the land in suit and has raised certain constructions. It is pleaded by the original plaintiff that she cannot be dispossessed from the land without adopting due process of law. Plaintiff’s case is that the disputed land is a Nazul land within the municipal limits of Ramnagar and the plaintiff was lessee over the land in suit. It is also alleged in the plaint that for the year 1978-79, she paid Rs. 180/- as rent to Nagar Palika, apart from the house tax paid by her. After death of original plaintiff (Ram Kali), Smt. Ram Murti Devi (daughter of brother of the husband of original plaintiff-Ram Kali), got herself impleaded as legal heir, seeking the title in the property in suit on the basis of a will. 4. Defendant/respondent Nagar Palika, contested the suit and filed its written statement. It is pleaded in the written statement that no title or interest gets transferred to Smt. Ram Murti, as alleged by her. It is admitted in the written statement that Ram Kali was in possession of the land in suit but her status was that of a licensee. She had no right to raise construction over the land in suit and that too without the permission/getting the map sanctioned from the Municipal Board. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues in the suit: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is the tenant of the disputed property or a mere licensee? 2. Whether Smt. Ram Kali had executed any ‘will’ in respect of the disputed property in favour of Ram Murti? If so, had she any right to execute the same? 3. Whether the plaintiff is the tenant of the disputed property or a mere licensee? 2. Whether Smt. Ram Kali had executed any ‘will’ in respect of the disputed property in favour of Ram Murti? If so, had she any right to execute the same? 3. Whether the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that the original plaintiff-Ram Murti was the licensee of the land in suit and she was not a lessee. It is further found by the trial court that the original plaintiff Ram Kali had no right to transfer the property to Ram Murti by executing a ‘will’ in respect of the property in suit. (Issue No. 3 was decided in negative, as a preliminary issue). The trial court dismissed the original suit No. 220 of 1978, vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.1980. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, Smt. Ram Murti (substituted plaintiff), preferred civil appeal No. 77 of 1980, before the lower appellate court. After hearing the parties, the lower appellate court, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence this appeal is filed before the Allahabad High Court on 15.12.1980. (This appeal is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal). Allahabad High Court admitted this second appeal on 16.12.1980, on following substantial question of law :- Whether the position of Ram Kali was that of a tenant or a licensee? And even on the finding that the position of Ram Kali was that of licensee, whether the license was heritable and did not terminate on the death of Ram Kali? 7. Answer to substantial question of law : Perusal of the plaint shows that in its first para, original plaintiff Ram Kali herself has admitted that the land in suit is a Nazul land of Nagar Palika and she is in possession thereof. In para-1 of the written statement, filed on behalf of the Municipal Board, it is admitted that the land is Nazul land and Ram Kali was in possession of the same. In para-1 of the written statement, filed on behalf of the Municipal Board, it is admitted that the land is Nazul land and Ram Kali was in possession of the same. The plea disputed by the defendant is that the said plaintiff had no right what-so-ever to raise construction over the property in suit nor had any right to transfer the land to anyone else. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that she is paying rent as a lessee to the Nagar Palika, as such, she cannot be dispossessed from the property without adopting due process of law. There is concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below that the status of Ramkali was that of a licensee and not that of a lessee. The burden lies on the plaintiff to show that she was lessee in the property in suit. There is no lease deed filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the courts below, which may suggest that she was lessee in the property in suit. I agree with the reasons given by the lower appellate court that mere payment of rent for the year 1978-79, to Nagar Palika, the plaintiff does not acquire the status of lessee over the Nazul land. It is nowhere pleaded by the plaintiff that she raised the constructions, after getting the map sanctioned from Nagar Palika. Even if Nagar Palika, has accepted the house tax in respect of the property in suit, it is not a valid construction, raised by the plaintiff nor does she become lessee while illegally raising the construction over the land in suit. 8. The appellant Ram Murti, has claimed rights over the property in suit on the basis of the alleged ‘will’ executed by original plaintiff Ram Kali. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot transfer a title better than what he himself has got. As such, the status of Ram Murti (present appellant) is worse than that of the original plaintiff Ram Kali. Ram Kali was a licensee but she had no right to transfer possession of land. Whatever right possessed to protect the possession, as a licensee that too got lost after she allegedly transferred the land and the house to the present appellant-Ram Murti. Status of Ram Murti is not even that of licensee. She is rank tress passer in the property in suit. Whatever right possessed to protect the possession, as a licensee that too got lost after she allegedly transferred the land and the house to the present appellant-Ram Murti. Status of Ram Murti is not even that of licensee. She is rank tress passer in the property in suit. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show me any document or any law, which shows that the license in favour of Ram Kali was heritable and did not terminate on her death. 9. The lower appellate court has rightly mentioned that the land in suit could not have been leased out to any person without adopting the procedure provided in Rule 13 of Nazul Manual. There is no evidence on record what-so-ever showing that the lease was ever executed in favour of the original plaintiff or in favour of the present appellant. Accordingly, substantial question of law stands answered that Ram Kali (original plaintiff) was simply a licensee and the right she possessed was not heritable, and it got terminated after her death. 10. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Interim order dated 16.12.1980, stands automatically vacated. No order as to costs.