1. The only question that arises for consideration in these revision petitions is, how far the court below was right in finding possession with the appellants in the two C. M. Appeals before it and so proceeding to cancel the temporary injection orders which the trial court had passed in favour of the plaintiffs as against them.

2. The courts below had been uniform in finding that the sambalachits executed by the respective 1st defendant in favour of the common 2nd plaintiff did not come within the scope of Act 1 of 1957 so as to confer on the executants a right of permanent occupancy, but on the other hand they occupied the position of salaried employees only, for the purpose of carrying on the cultivation. The point on which the courts below differed was in respect of the nature of the control, which those defendants had over the property concerned, at date of the suits after termination of the jural relationship constituted by the sambalachits. For, while the Munsiff was of the opinion that there was and could be no possession in the eye of the law so far as the defendants were concerned, the learned District Judge found it possible to say that the defendants were in