Wort, J.The defendant is the appellant in this Court and he appeals from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge which was granted in favour of the plaintiff, giving the plaintiff possession and ejecting the defendants from a certain plot of land in suit. It is admitted by both parties that the land in question was reclaimed.

2. On the part of the plaintiff it is alleged that his, predecessor-in-title reclaimed it, whereas the defendant alleges that he or his predecessor reclaimed the land in question. It is clear in my judgment, that the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title had been in possession for a long time prior to the suit but had been ousted from possession by the defendant some few months before the suit was instituted.

3. And the plaintiffs case shortly is this, that an uncle, his predecessor-in-title, got possession of the land under a. sanad dated 1886, that his father and another uncle were joint at the time, and therefore the possession was the joint possession of the three. The finally published Record-of-rights Recorded the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title as being in possession. As I have stated the defendant, so it is alleged by the plaintiff, ousted the plaintiff before the commencement of the suit before the learned Munsiff.

4. In both Courts there has been considerable discussion regarding the history of the sanad, and in one instance, at any rate, that before the learned Munsiff, it was decided that the document in question was in effect a forgery and not to be relied upon. The plaintiffs evidence was, as I have indicated, the sanad of 1886 plus certain rent receipts. The whole discussion before this Court has taken place. As I have already stated the entry in the finally published Record-of-Rights was in the plaintiffs favour, and therefore he started with a presumption in his favour.

5. The argument by the defendants learned advocate is to this effect: that the sanad which I shall describe in detail in a moment was in effect a lease; that it was unregistered, and therefore the plaintiff could not rely upon it in order to prove his title, and. that argument is based, as one will see, on the terms of the instrument itself. The date of the sanad, or grant as I propose to call it, was 1293, that is to say, 11886, and was for a period of three years. The terms or the conditions of the grant were that the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title was to reclaim land within certain boundaries therein described, and that at the end of the period of three years a lease would be entered into at a rent to be thereafter fixed, that. the lease would be in respect of those [portions of the land which in fact had been reclaimed according to the terms of the sanad. In my judgment, on the first reading of this sanad, I was of the opinion that it was not a lease and. in that view I have been confirmed by the case of Dwarkanath Saha v. Ledu Sikdar [1906] 33 Cal. 502, where the Court held that a grant in similar terms but for the purpose in that case of clearing jungle and for a longer period, was certainly not a title to land whatever it might otherwise be called. Now the 3ame authority decided that it not being a title to land, it was unnecessary to register it. In consequence, therefore, the first objection taken by the defendant-appellant in this case, namely that the plaintiff could not use this document in evidence, goes.

6. The second objection he takes is that the receipts which the plaintiff adduced in evidence in no way identified the actual land over which the dispute arises. But that point is of no avail to him having regard to the decision to which I have arrived on the first question, the validity, or the admissibility I should say, of the sanad in evidence. When these documents are taken together, they undoubtedly support the plaintiffs case and clearly show that the land of which he now seeks possession was the land over which this predecessor-in-title obtained possession and it was for that purpose and that purpose alone that this document was put in. Having come to that decision, it must be held that the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge was right, and therefore, in my judgment, the appeal should be dismissed.

7. There was one further point, however, which the appellant advanced and that was that the suit should fail by reason of the fact that the cosharers were not parties to the action. It is true that they are certainly not joined with the plaintiffs in this suit but they are on the record as defendants and that point therefore fails. In my judgment therefore, this appeal should be dismissed. The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he has a right to possession jointly with the two widows. The plaintiff alone will recover his costs in this Court and in the Courts below as against the defendant first party.