Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and would maintain that even if the findings of the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court are to be taken into consideration, the tenancy not being in serious controversy unless and until the appellants are evicted by due process of law, the possession cannot be disturbed. The learned counsel also would maintain that when specific stand had been taken by the appellants relating to the execution of the agreement of sale by the wife of the plaintiff, the non-examination of the wife is a serious lapse and adverse inference should have been drawn in this regard, and hence, the findings recorded cannot be sustained and the second appeal is to be allowed.

3. Per contra, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner o