1. The defendant is the second appellant. The suit as originally framed was for recovery of property on the basis of an oral lease. Subsequently plaintiff was permitted to convert the suit into one on title. The defendant denied the oral lease set up and the title of the plaintiff and pleaded that he has acquired title to the property by adverse possession. The trial Court repelled those contentions and on the findings that the oral lease set up by the plaintiff is true and that the title to the property vests in the plaintiff, gave a decree for recovery of the site with the buildings thereon with past and future rent on payment of the value of the building.

2. In appeal by the defendant the lower appellate court found that the oral lease alleged is not true. However on the basis of title which was found in favour of the plaintiff it confirmed the decree of the trial Court except to the extent of the claim for past and future rent. The defendant has come in appeal from the above decree and the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of objections in respect of the claim for rent that was disallowed and the finding regarding the oral lease.

3. The Courts below have concurrently f