This is a suit mainly for possession of immovable property instituted primarily against the first defendant.

2. The rights of the parties herein flow from a written agreement dated 18th of July, 1970 made between Dewar's Garage and Esso Standard. Dewar’s Garage was the predecessor of the plaintiff and Esso Standard was the predecessor of the first defendant. There are no disputes in this regard and the plaintiff and the first defendant have not disputed before me that their rights flow from the said written agreement, whatever those rights might be.

3. The second defendant is a petrol dealer. The agreement of the second defendant with the first is also exhibited in this proceeding and the same is Exbt. D-2/1 dated 15th of September, 1983.

4. The second defendant himself states in his written statement in the first paragraph that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant. As such it is quite clear that the original rights of the parties would have to be determined as between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

5. It is principally an interpretation of the terms of the aforesaid, 1970 agreement which has been the subject matter of the dispu