Chota Nagpur Banking Association Ltd. ... vs Kumar Kamakhya Narayan Singh And Anr. on 23 January, 1928
P.C.J. 429 : 20 E.R. 347; Sundarbas Kueri v. Dilwar Sahu 52 Ind. Cas. 701 : 1 P.L.T. 30 : (1920) Pat. 39. But there is no proof of the permanent tenure nature of the tenure to deprive the decree in ejectment of its evidential value to the contrary. Oral evidence was given on be-half of the defence by Mosahablal, the grandson of Narayandas that the grant to Narayandas and Sambhuprasad was for life only. In his petition to be made a party to the rent suit (Ex. J) plaintiff No. 1 asserted that he had purchased an istimrari mokarrari interest in Mauza Nawadi and it has been held that in Hazaribagh an istimrari mokarrari interest is a life interest only. Apart from this admission (if it can be taken to be an admission) the fact remains that all that is established on the evidence is a tenancy in Sambhuprasad and that the plaintiff has failed to establish that it was a permanent tenure. Consequently it must have been of a temporary nature and it continued by the receipt and payment of rent until the decree in Suit No. 210 of 1920 was passed. It is, therefore, impossible for the plaintiffs to set up a title by prescription acquired during the continuance of the tenancy.