also the revival evidence of NAW-5. When the Uday Lal was got the electricity connection Chanda Devi was not having the title. Further, objector Ram Kishore driver her title from Chanda Devi by saying he has come in the shop through Chanda Devi. The Evidence on record has also come that Uday Lal become made and unsound mind. Therefore, Chanda Devi was dealing with the property. Further, the title of Chanda Devi was no believed. Therefore, the only possibility or interpretation, which can be considered that Ram Kishore has been put into possession by Chanda Devi, after the madness of the Uday Lal, in the capacity of his representative/guardian/agent. Therefore, Ram Kishore objector will come under the definition of sub-tenant as he was failed to prove his independent title/possession other than the original tenant Uday Lal against whom decree has been passed. Instead of these above stated facts, learned Trial Court allowed the objections, which is per se illegal. Hence, impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set-aside.”
