iii) As far as Ex.A23 is concerned, the same came into existence during the pendency of the first appeal. The order is passed on the application filed by the plaintiff on 04.01.2007 to record his name as cultivating tenant. The order is passed in his favour basing on Ex.A1 Will effect of which has already been discussed in the forgoing paragraphs. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the plaintiff cannot claim any right under Ex.A23 when the claim of the parties is to be decided on the basis of the actual state-of-affairs prevailing on date of the suit. Further, the reading of Ex.A23 reveals that it refers to the earlier proceedings taken by the plaintiff unsuccessfully for the same relief. Unless and otherwise, the copy of the earlier orders are produced before this Court, no reliance can be made on this document, which is obtained much after the dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the first appeal. The plaintiff has no other material document to prove his claim as tenant much less cultivating tenant and his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That being so, both the Courts below have, in their well considered judgment, rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff and this Court finds no ground to interfere with the same and the substantial questions of law are thus answered against the appellant/plaintiff.
