B. Venkayya and Another vs K. Sateyya and Another

The District Munsif has found on the third issue that the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) had no occupancy rights and, although the

Subordinate Judge has not recorded any express finding on this point, it is clear from his judgment that he regarded the relations in which the

parties stood, as precluding any independent right of occupancy existing in these appellants. We think that Exhibits C and II show that the District

Munsif''s conclusion on this issue was correct. It was contended for the appellants that the (first respondent''s) plaintiff''s title having been

determined before suit by expiry of his lease deed he was not entitled to obtain a decree of ejectment against the appellants, but we think that the

expiration of his lease deed does not necessarily imply the expiration of his right of possession and as against parties who are in no better position

than trespassers he is entitled to a decree; [vide Gibbins v. Buckland (1863) L.J. 32 and Knight v. Clarke (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 294.

We may add that the landlord, who is the first defendant, acquiesces in the plaintiff getting a decree and it has been shown that the appellants are

not in a position to resist the landlord''s right. This Second Appeal is dismissed with costs (one set).