JUDGMENT Dalal, J.
1. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of certain rights in a particular area of land on the basis of his purchase from one Bechu. Bechu had been given this land on lease by the zamindar in 1893. The transfer in favour of the plaintiff was made in 1923. The defence was that the interest of a thekedar is, subject to the terms of his lease, heritable, but not transferable, as laid down in Section 20(3), Tenancy Act of 1901. Both the subordinate Courts have held that the lease was an agricultural lease. The terms were read out to me in vernacular and they justify the opinion of the two subordinate Courts. The first ground of appeal here is that the lease having given transferable powers, the transfer of the lease ought to have been upheld. The point has been decided by this Court in Majid Husain v. Kurban Ali A.I.R. 1926 All.412. The interest of a permanent lessee of agricultural land, although declared to be transferable by the lease, cannot be transferred as such transfer is barred by the provisions of Section 20(3), Tenancy Act of 1901. The second ground is based on the ruling of this Court in the case of Ballabha Das v. Murat Narain Singh A.I.R. 1926 All. 432. In that case the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were applied to a lease on the ground that the lease was one of proprietary rights. The consideration will depend upon the interpretation of the document in suit, and the decision given in the case of another lease can be no guide to a decision as regards the lease in the present suit. The third ground was that the contesting defendant had no right to contest the suit because she had no interest in the property. If she had no interest in the property it is not explained why she was made a party (defendant) to the suit. The fact that she was made a party proves her possession, and as a person in possession she is entitled to object to her ejectment. Further, even where a suit is ex parte, the plaintiff mu3t prove his case before he can obtain a decree. In the present case he has failed to prove the effective character of the transfer on the basis of which he sued for possession. This appeal is dismissed with costs.