This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of their title to the property. The plaintiffs are four ladies. Admittedly they have got title to the property. The defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs.

2. The first defendant executed an agreement dated 30-5-1970. This agreement is a registered agreement. By virtue of this agreement now the defendants says that the first defendant was put in possession of the suit property as a licensee. It was stipulated in the agreement that the agreement will operate from 1-6-1970 and that for the grant of the licence, the first defendant has to pay Rs. 166.66. The property was given for a definite purpose, viz., to make certain structures for the purpose of running a cinema theatre. The permission was granted for a fixed period, viz., 5 years. The first defendant was thus continuing possession of the property in question. While so, defendants 2 and 3 purchased the right to conduct the cinema theatre from the first defendant. This has happened, according to defendants 2 and 3 on 6-3-1973 and they continued to run the cinema theatre in th