1. His Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of property with rent, past and future. The properties are said to have been leased orally in Thulam 1121 by Avaran Haji, the plaintiff's assignor, to the 1st defendant. Plaintiff has taken an assignment of the landlord's rights as per Ext. A4 dated 22-12-1947.

2. 2nd defendant was impleaded in this suit as one in joint cultivation of the property with the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant disclaimed the lease, and set up an independent title in himself. He denied the title of Avaran Haji to any portion of the suit property and added that even if he had any title at any time that was extinguished by limitation and adverse possession of himself and his predecessors-in¬interest The learned Munsiff found the title of the suit property with the plaintiff, and the oral lease mentioned by the plaintiff to be true and decreed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, found, on a very detailed discussion of the evidence in the case, that the oral lease could not be true and that the plaintiff had no title to the property and dismissed the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant