1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts declaring that the renewal of a lease executed by defendant 5 as a mukthyar agent of defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 is not valid or binding on the plaintiffs or the leasehold interest they claim in the property. The facts that led to the litigation are clearly and succinctly stated in Para.1 of the lower appellate court's judgment. That paragraph may with advantage be quoted here:

"The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is for setting aside Ext. II, renewal deed executed by the 5th defendant as Mukthyar of the 2nd defendant in favour of the jenmi, the 1st defendant. The second defendant had a leasehold interest in the plaint property. He contracted with the 1st plaintiff on 2.12.1124 to sell the leasehold interest to the latter before the 15th of Chingom 1125 for a consideration of Rs. 1300. Ext. A and Ext. A(1) are the agreement and counter-part. Thereafter on 8.12.1124, the 2nd defendant executed Ext. I Mukthyar in favour of the 5th defendant authorising him to execute a lease deed in favour of the 1st defendant attorning to the latter. On 10.12.1124, the 5th defen