1. The interesting question that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether a tenant who has not been put into possession at the commencement of the tenancy by the landlord, but was already in possession on that day is bound by the rule of estoppel contained in S.116 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am stating in this Second Appeal only such of those facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal and these facts lie in a very narrow compass. The plaint schedule property belonged in jenmom to Kuttiprom Kovilakom. One Chandu Nambiar had a tharaka right under the Kovilakom and one Chirutha under whom first defendant claims as a suecessor-in interest was in possession of the property under Chandu Nambiar. The original jenmi, the Kovilakam, executed a Melcharthu in favour of one Kalleri Moosa who, on the strength of the Mabharthu, instituted O.S. 547 of 1919 of the Badagara Munsiff's Court for eviction, impleading both Chirutha and the tarwad of Chandu Nambiar, the latter being the intermediary. He obtained a decree, in execution of which he filed an execution petition. To get delivery he had to deposit value of improvements. But he did not deposit the va