1. These two Second Appeals were heard together as they raised a common question. The defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 743 of 1973 and the sole plaintiff is the appellant in the other Second Appeal. We shall first state the facts of Second Appeal No. 43 of 1973. It arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the A schedule immovable property and B schedule movables, which belonged to the tarwad of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff was the karnavan of the tarwad, and the defendants are the wife and children of the previous karnavan, one Gopalan who died on 19th August 1965. The courts below held that the A schedule property belonged to the tarwad and granted a decree for recovery of possession: As far as the B schedule is concerned the tarwad's title was found against, and the suit, in so far as it related to the movables, was dismissed.

2. Second Appeal No. 1145 of 1973 arises out of a suit by the same karnavan of the tarwad against a son of Gopalan. It was for recovery of possession of an item of property, in respect of which the son claimed a leasehold right under an oral arrangement, later confirmed by the execution of a register