1. The plaintiff Keshavbhai had not, so far as the evidence shows, possession of land within the meaning of Section 4, Clause 2, of the Mamlatdars’ Act in such wise that he could claim an injunction from the Mamlatdar. When this clause is compared with the first of the same section, we may gather, from the omission from it of the words “profits of the same” (that is of lands), that only an interruption of physical possession or enjoyment was intended to be removed by the injunction for which the clause provides. Such possession the plaintiff Keshavbhai had not acquired; nor, so far as the evidence shows, is it clear that he had ever acquired a complete constructive possession through an attornment of tenants, who having previously paid rent to Divali and so created a de facto possession as of a land-lord in her would thus complete a transfer from her to Keshavbhai.
2. We, therefore, make the rule absolute, and reverse the Mamlatdar’s order. Costs of these proceedings to be borne by the opponent.