Sinha, J.This is a plaintiffs second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing his suit in ejectment.

2. It appears that the appellant, who is the proprietor of the Ramgarh Estate, came to manage his own estate sometime in year 1937, after the estate had been released by the Court of Wards which held possession of the estate for more than twelve years, before the proprietor himself assumed management of the estate on attainment of majority During the management of the estate by the Court of Wards, sometime in the year 1923, the Manager, Court of Wards, made 7.01 acres of land at an annual rent of Rs. 8-4. The lands thus settled comprised an area of 5.13 acres in khata ho. 3 which is recorded in the finally published record-of rights as proprietors privileged land (zirat proprietor) as also of lands in khata No. 4 recorded as bakasht in the same record. The holding was purchased by the defendant in execution of a certificate obtained by the Manager, Court of Wards, for arrears of rent from the original tenant. The suit was instituted by the proprietor for ejectment on the ground that the settlement was ultra vires of the Manager.

3. The Court of first instance took the view that the settlement was ultra vires of the Manager in respect of the zirat portion of the lands in question but not so in respect of the bakasht portion; but the learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation so far as the zirat portion was concerned in view of the provisions of Section 17, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, but on different grounds, so far as the zirat portion was concerned. He came to the conclusion that the settlement was not ultra vires of the Manager so far as the lands of khata No. 3 recorded as zirat were concerned. His finding was based on a construction of the relevant rules framed under the Court of Wards Act, which I shall presently refer to. Having thus lost in both the Courts below, the plaintiff has come to this Court in appeal.

5. It has been contended, in the first instance by Mr. L.K. Jha that Rule 72 of the old Court of Wards Manual corresponding to Rule 65 of the current Manual is ultra vires of the Court of Wards Act itself. The argument has been advanced on the following grounds. It has been contended that u/s 15, Court of Wards Act, the Court, which ordinarily means the Board of Revenue under the Court of Wards Act, could delegate its powers under the Act to Commissioners of Divisions or Collectors of Districts but not to the Manager, as he is not a person appointed under the provisions of Section 15 itself.

6. It has also been argued that the rules went beyond the powers conferred by the rule-making section, namely, Section 70 of the Act, in so far as the rules conferred on the Manager complete discretion to make settlements or re-settlements with raiyats in respect of holding carrying a maximum rent of Es. 50 a year, and that, as these settlements were not subject to the discretion of the Collector or the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue the Manager has unrestricted discretion to grant settlements up to Rs. 50 by way of annual rent, the door to abuse of that power. Here, we are not concerned with the mala fides of the acts of the Manager. The question of mala fides does not appear to have been agitated in the Courts below, and, therefore, we need not make any further reference to it. But, construing the Rule 65 aforesaid with reference to the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 18 and 39, Court of Wards Act, it is clear that the manager holds delegated power from the Board of Revenue, acting as the Court within the meaning of the Court of Wards Act, to make settlement or re-settlement, as the case may be, in respect of holdings carrying a maximum rent of Rs. 50 a year. But Rule, 241 provides the ordinary mode for creating a lease in favour of every raiyat in terms of Section 44, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which provides for a written document evidencing the terms of the settlement.

7. If the settlement was for a term of years exceeding one year, it should have been by a registered document. There could be an oral lease only in so far as it could be for a term of one year only. In the absence of a written and registered document evidencing the settlement, it must be held that the settlement was made by the manager in accordance with the rules laid down in the Court of Wards Manual, particularly Rule 241 which is equivalent to Rule 228 of the old Manual. Under that rule, the manager, should have got a registered document executed evidencing the terms of the lease. That provision of the rules not having been complied with, the settlement in respect of the zirat lands was ultra vires. But the same considerations cannot apply to the settlement in so far as the bakasht portion was concerned. That was land from the raiyati stock of the village which could have been settled or resettled in the ordinary course of business even for a year with a raiyat who may have been a settled raiyat of the village. In this case, the bakasht portion has been in possession of the defendant for more than twelve years. So, in any view of the case, he has acquired occupancy rights in the bakasht portion of the holding.

8. As I have already held that the settlement of the zirat portion of the holding was in excess of the powers conferred upon the manager, the same must be set aside as illegal.

9. Now, the question arises whether, on this finding, the entire settlement should be set aside, or only the portion relating to the zirat lands. This is a suit in ejectment, and the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, that is to say, only if he succeeds in making out that the defendant is a trespasser, or that he is a tenant who is not entitled to continue in possession with reference to the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. As regards the bakasht portion of the holding the defendant has acquired occupancy rights and it cannot, therefore, be said that the defendant is a trespasser qua the plaintiff. Mr. Jha argued that the plaintiff has brought the suit within three years after attaining majority. That may be so; but, if the defendant had "acquired occupancy rights in the land during the period the estate was held by the Court of Wards through the manager, the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to eject the defendant. The simple fact that his estate was under the management of the Court of Wards cannot operate to prevent the acquisition of occupancy or non-occupancy rights, as the case may be, in lands held by the tenant for the time being. It must, therefore, be held that the suit cannot succeed in respect of the bakasht portion of the holding; but, as already indicated, the suit must succeed in respect of the zirat portion, namely, in respect, of the lands comprised in khata No. 3. As to on what terms the tenant would hold the bakasht portion of the holding, we need not determine in the present suit. It may be that the landlord may have to institute a suit for ascertainment of a fair and equitable rent in respect of that portion which has been adjudged to have been held by the defendant in his occupancy rights.

10. As a result of these considerations, the appeal in respect of the zirat portion, namely, khata No. 3 is allowed; but, as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs in this Court. As regards the costs in the Courts below, the plaintiff will be entitled to two thirds of the costs in those Courts. The suit, therefore, for ejectment and for mesne profits is decreed for the portion of the lands as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

Bennett, J.

I agree.